Oxford Theology and Religion
Monographs
Editorial Committee
d. acharya m. n. a. bockmuehl
m. j. edwards p. s. fiddes
s. r. i. foot h. najman
g. ward
Māyā in the Bhāgavata Purāa
Human Suffering and Divine Play
Gopal K. Gupta
image
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It
furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark
of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Gopal K. Gupta 2020
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2020
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly
permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose
this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020946425
ISBN 978–0–19–885699–3
ebook ISBN 978–0–19–259906–3
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198856993.001.0001
Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for
information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
To my parents, who
introduced me to Krishna
Preface and Acknowledgements
There is no topic more pervasive throughout Indian philosophy than that of
māyā. Māyā as a concept is multivalent, foundational, and complex, its
oldest referents being in the
g-veda. This book explores māyā’s rich
conceptual history, and then focuses on the highly developed theology of
māyā found in the Sanskrit Bhāgavata Purāa.
The Bhāgavata is one of the most highly regarded and variegated of Hindu
sacred texts due to its coherent narrative structure, its high poetic quality, its
philosophical sophistication, and its extensive development of bhakti
theology. As such, this work of over 14,000 Sanskrit verses ranks, along
with the Rāmāyaa and Mahābhārata, as central to the contemporary
Hindu corpus of sacred texts in the Sanskrit language. As a work in the
literary language of the Brahmins, the Bhāgavata has enjoyed considerable
commentarial attention (with 81 extant commentaries), yet it has also
permeated popular Hinduism, both in India and diaspora communities,
through manifold interpretations in temple liturgy and architecture, ritual
recitations, dance, drama, and more recently, film. All major vernacular
languages of India have renditions of the Bhāgavata, which often become
regional classics in their own right.
The Bhāgavata presents māyā as a powerful creative force that not only
initially draws the soul closer to God, but also enhances the ultimate
relationship between them. The most important and unique feature of the
Bhāgavata is its emphasis on spontaneous devotion (bhakti) directed toward
Kṛṣṇa or Vịṣṇu by immersing the mind and senses in him. This
spontaneous bhakti is facilitated by yoga-māyā’s power, because in the
bhakti-yoga of the Bhāgavata, in loving play, both the devotee and God
himself forget God’s majesty. Yoga-māyā is the power that effects this
amnesia, thus arranging for the experience of intimate love between Kṛṣṇa
and his devotee. In this context, māyā serves not as the power of delusion,
but rather as the power that reconnects finite souls with the divine play of
Kṛṣṇa. Instead of forgetting God, the souls now forget that he is God, so
that they may play their role in relationship with him. Indeed, Kṛṣṇa
himself voluntarily submits to the power of yoga-māyā, losing himself in
his divine drama, thus increasing the intensity and intimacy of his yoga.
Māyā’s scope and influence in the Bhāgavata are far-reaching—māyā is the
world and the means by which God creates the world, she is the power that
deludes living beings and ensorcells them in the phenomenal world, and she
is the facilitator of God’s play, paradoxically revealing him to his devotees
by concealing some aspects of his identity such as his majesty. While
Vedānta philosophy typically sees māyā only as a negative force, the
Bhāgavata affirms that māyā also has a positive role, for in both the
conditioned and liberated states, māyā is meant to ultimately draw living
beings toward Kṛṣṇa and intensify their devotion for him. In the
Bhāgavata, māyā is often identified as the divine feminine, and women are
typically identified as māyā. This book examines māyā’s place in the text’s
discussions on gender and māyā’s role in the Bhāgavata’s narratives, paying
special attention to māyā’s relationship with other key concepts in the text,
such as suffering (du
kha), devotion (bhakti), and play (līlā).
I have had the good fortune of having many skilled teachers and mentors in
my twelve years of writing this book. I am very grateful to my supervisor at
the University of Oxford, Professor Gavin Flood, who gave me unremitting
inspiration and invaluable guidance throughout the research and writing
process. His caring hand was instrumental in leading this manuscript to
publication. Many other scholars gave direction and timely advice: Kenneth
Valpey, the late Professor Nrsimhacarya, the late Professor John H. Brooke,
Patrick Olivelle, John Hawley, Shashiprabha Kumar, and Graham Schweig.
Professor Schweig, as a teacher, friend, and mentor, has supported and
encouraged me more than I could ever give him credit for here. Indeed, it
was after reading Schweig’s captivating book, Dance of Divine Love, that I
decided to focus my research on māyā in the Bhāgavata Purāa. I would
like to thank him profusely for writing such an insightful and beautiful
foreword for this book.
A special thank you to my supportive Oxford-England community:
Shaunaka Rishi, Keshava, Rembert, Anuradha, Abhishek, Lal Krishna,
Shyama, Judit, Vrindavan, and Varsana. I am deeply indebted to all these
individuals who cared for me as friends and mentors throughout my
academic studies.
My brother, Ravi Gupta, painstakingly read through earlier versions of the
manuscript and offered many helpful suggestions. His invaluable input was
instrumental in the development and completion of this work, for which I
am very grateful.
This work would not have seen the light of day without the fine tuning and
final editing of Allan Andersson, a dear friend, guide and editor, to whom I
owe an enduring debt of gratitude. Allan provided me invaluable personal
and professional guidance, taught me a great deal about good writing, and
gave me valuable insight into the multifaceted philosophy and theology of
the Bhāgavata Purāa.
My first Sanskrit teacher, Gary Thomas, instilled in me a love for the
Sanskrit language by his enthusiasm, expertise and patient instruction. Gary
also carefully edited the first draft of this book and offered helpful
suggestions, for which I am thankful.
My debt is nowhere deeper in the pursuit of this book than the members of
my family. I would like to thank my mother and father, Aruddha and Arun
Gupta, and my wife, Devi, and our daughter and son, Sita and Balaram,
whose love and guidance are with me in whatever I pursue and who have
cared for me in every possible way.
I would like to thank my teachers in the Bhāgavata traditions who have
helped me appreciate the Bhāgavata’s multifaceted messages: A. C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Gopal Krishna Goswami, Anuttama
Dasa, Steven J. Rosen, and Ganapati Swami.
At Oxford University Press I would like to thank my copyeditor Martin
Noble for his efficiency and keen eye for detail, and for being so gracious to
work with, and Markcus Sandanraj at SPi Global, who project managed the
book so capably. I would like to thank Tom Perridge, John Smallman,
Henry Clark, Hannah Chippendale, Rossinna Ippolito, Prof. Diarmaid
Macculloch and Prof. Graham Ward, all of whom helped in the publication
process.
I am grateful to several institutions for their financial help: The Clarendon
Scholarship of the Theology Faculty at Oxford University, the Cyril and
Philis Long doctoral scholarship of the Queen’s College at Oxford
University, the Jiva Goswami Scholarship of the Oxford Center for Hindu
Studies, and a grant from the College of Idaho for summer research and
writing.
I am very grateful to my colleagues at the Department of Philosophy and
Religion at the University of Evansville, in Indiana, USA. They provided
me the academic community and place to complete this book. I am grateful
to all of those with whom I have had the pleasure to work during this and
other related projects.
1
Introduction
“What Sort of Thing Is the
Bhāgavata?”
In 1869, when India was still firmly in the grip of British rule, Bhaktivinode
Thakur (1883–1914 ce), a prolific Gauīya Vaiṣṇava author, poet, and
philosopher, penned an English-language essay aimed at persuading
educated Hindus, thoughtful Britishers, and dedicated Christians to view the
Bhāgavata Purāa with an open and unbiased mind. To this end, he posed a
rhetorical question that stands at the very heart of the book you are about to
read:
‘What sort of thing is the Bhāgavata?’, asks the European gentlemen newly
arrived in India. His companion tells him with a serene look that the
Bhāgavata is a book which his Oriya bearer daily reads in the evening to a
number of hearers. It contains a jargon of unintelligible and savage
literature of those men who paint their noses with some sort of earth or
sandal, and wear beads all over their bodies in order to procure salvation for
themselves.
Another of his companions, who has traveled a little in the interior, would
immediately contradict him and say that the Bhāgavata is a Sanskrit work
claimed by a sect of men, the Goswamis, who give mantras, like the Pope
of Italy, to the common people of Bengal, and pardon their sins on payment
of gold enough to defray their social expenses …
A young Bengal, chained up in English thoughts and ideas, and wholly
ignorant of the [pre-Muslim] history of his own country, will add one more
explanation by saying that the Bhāgavata is a book containing an account of
the life of Krishna, who was an ambitious and an immoral man! This is all
that he could gather from his grandmother while yet he did not go to
school!
Thus the Great Bhāgavata ever remains unknown to the foreigners like the
elephant of the six blind who caught hold of the several parts of the body of
the beast!1
In an attempt to avoid these sorts of narrow-minded conclusions and to
obtain a glimpse of that “elephant” in its entire, this book intends to shine a
good deal of scholarly, analytical, and commentarial light on the matter of
the Bhāgavata Purāa—to draw out its theological, philosophical and
ontological underpinnings, to explicate its polymorphic monotheistic
conception of God, and to anticipate and dispel potential misunderstandings
of key points. To accomplish this, we will examine the Bhāgavata’s various
usages and understandings of a central notion in Indic thought, described by
the eminent Sanskritist Daniel Ingalls as “one of the most beautiful
concepts in the history of religion.”2 It is the concept māyā, here meaning
the all-purpose manifold energy (or power) of “Bhagavān,” one of the
Bhāgavata’s various names for God.
This introduction will, first, discuss the Bhāgavata’s place among India’s
extensive collection of Sanskrit texts, second, explain why the Bhāgavata’s
conception of māyā has been selected to serve as the focal point of this
book, third, explore the notion of narrative as a theological lens, and finally,
say a word or two about the sources that have been selected to inform our
exposition of the Bhāgavata’s thought.
What Is the Bhāgavata?
The variegated array of Sanskrit texts that originate from South Asia likely
constitutes Indic civilization’s most unique, enduring, and influential
contribution to world culture—a contribution the roots of which extend
back to the most ancient of civilizational times. To name only the most
prominent among these literatures, there are the four Vedas, the Upaniads,
the Vedānta-sūtras, the epics Rāmāyaa and Mahābhārata (the latter of
which contains the renowned Bhagavad-gītā), and the eighteen principle
Purāas, among which we find the Bhāgavata Purāa, a work of some
14,000 verses that has had a uniquely powerful impact on Indic culture,
religion, and thought.
To date, most studies of the Purāas (including the Bhāgavata Purāa) have
focused on the sociocultural and/or narrational dimension of these texts
while ignoring their extensive religio-philosophical content. The remainder
largely consist of general overviews such as Wilson’s introduction to the
Vi
ṣṇ
u Purā
a (1961),3 Winternitz’s study of the Purāas in The History of
Indian Literature (1971),4 Ludo Rochers The Purā
as (1988),5 and
Donigers Purā
a Perennis (1993).6 In this regard, Greg Bailey has
identified two types of overviews of Purāic literature: “those that attempt
to give both a description of the characteristics of the genre and brief
glosses of the texts that are part of it, and those that simply restrict
themselves to defining the genre as such.”7 Apart from these, there have
been a number of useful translations of specific Purāas, an early example
of which is Wilson’s translation of the Vi
ṣṇ
u Purā
a (1961).8 To this one
can add Brown’s more recent study of the Devi Bhāgavata9 as well as an
ongoing project aimed at producing a critical edition of the Skanda
Purāa.10
Among all the Purāic literatures, however, it is the Bhāgavata Purāa that
has been most influential, having featured prominently in the Western
encounter with Hinduism since at least the mid-nineteenth century. The
work’s earliest translation into a European tongue was conducted by
Eugene Burnouf, who, between 1840 and 1847, published the original
Sanskrit with French translation in three folio volumes.11 Renewed
recognition of the Bhāgavata’s status as a world literature as well as its
ongoing relevance as a living sacred text has inspired several recent
academic publications aimed at introducing the text to a broader scholarly
readership. Examples include Edwin Bryant’s translation of the Bhāgavata’s
tenth book,12 Graham Schweig’s study of the tenth book’s rāsa-līlā
chapters,13 and Rick Jarow’s study of the Bhāgavata’s “death narratives.”14
While much of this scholarship is focused on the tenth book, the highly
popular account of Ksa’s incarnation and activities, the other eleven
books contain discourses, narratives, and prayers that are also worthy of
scholarly attention. An aim of this book is to broaden our understanding by
examining not only the tenth book, but also those that have been thus far
overlooked, thus making our presentation more representative of the
Bhāgavata as a whole. Another aim is to allow the Bhāgavata to speak for
and of itself, while we also rely upon both scholarly and traditional
interpretative sources to guide our way. What, then, does the Bhāgavata say
about itself?
From the very beginning, in Book 1, the Bhāgavata declares itself to be the
ripened fruit of the tree of Vedic knowledge—the highest and most
satisfying among the entire collection of Sanskrit works—and entreats its
readers to deeply and repeatedly drink of its nectarine juice (its essential
truth) until they are carried from their mortal frames.15 What is that
essential truth, that vision of reality, of which the Bhāgavata speaks? It is a
bold vision indeed—one that claims to provide reasonable explanations as
to: (1) the nature, form, and activities of the supreme being (the complete
whole, the cause of all causes, the origin of all); (2) the nature and function
of his eternal emanations (we living beings); (3) the nature of both absolute
and temporal existence; (4) the nature of prema (selfless love of God) as
opposed to kāmā (selfish personal desire); and, so on.
The Bhāgavata’s philosophical content is solidly grounded in the classical
understandings of both Vedānta and Sākhya, and its overarching
theological aim is to promote unalloyed devotion to Kṛṣṇa (or God) as the
highest and most satisfying human occupation. All these matters and more
are thoroughly discussed throughout the Bhāgavata, and will be touched
upon in this book as well.
This having been said, it is also important to note that the Bhāgavata is not
a systematic work in the manner of the Sākhya-kārikā or Yoga-sūtras, nor
is it structured and linear in fashion as are these works. Rather it weaves its
theological discourse through its narratives, often discussing various themes
at the same time. The Bhāgavata’s discourse sometimes moves like a spiral,
discussing a theological topic repeatedly, but each time with a bit more
depth or in a different context. At other times, it moves like a neural
network, in which one theological idea leads to another with no apparent
framework other than the connections between the ideas themselves.
And yet, although the Bhāgavata does not have a clear structure, it would be
largely incorrect to characterize it as an unsystematic work since it contains
a central theme that it develops throughout—i.e., that the highest yoga is
active loving exchange (bhakti) directed toward Kṛṣṇa (God). As Ravi
Gupta and Kenneth Valpey have noted in the introduction to their
Bhāgavata reader: “The Bhāgavata’s teaching style … [is] relentlessly
focused. Both the dialogical method and careful structure serve to usher the
student into realizing a message that resonates throughout the text—namely,
that bhakti for Kṛṣṇa is the highest goal, one that trumps the limitations of
dharma, overcomes human weakness, and leads to liberation from
suffering.”16
In pursuit of this central theme, the Bhāgavata, at various places, draws
from many of the narratives found in the g Veda, from pañcarātra and
tantric texts, and from all six traditional schools of Indic philosophy (i.e.,
vaiśe
ika, nyāya, yoga,
khya, mīmā
, and vedānta). Most notably, it
draws from the Mahābhārata, and particularly the Bhagavad-gītā, in its
acceptance of Kṛṣṇa as the supreme deity. But the Bhāgavata not only
draws from these philosophical, epical, and ritual traditions, it builds upon
them as well, forming what Smith calls a cumulative tradition. Thus, to
classify the Bhāgavata only as a philosophical or a theological or a ritual
text would be delimiting and inaccurate.17 Moreover, any significant study
of the Bhāgavata’s theology must include a study of its narratives, which
can be likened to a lens through which the work’s theology is revealed.
Unlike most previous Bhāgavata studies, this book makes extensive use of
these narratives.
Apart from its significance as a work of theology and philosophy, the
Bhāgavata has been recognized as the “literary Purāa”18 for the
outstanding beauty of its language and poetic style, which are said to be on
a par with the best that Sanskrit literature has to offer. This is certainly one
of the reasons that the Bhāgavata has inspired “more derivative literature,
poetry, drama, dance, theatre, and art than any other text in the history of
Sanskrit literature, with the possible exception of the Rāmāyaa.”19 It
serves as the basis for the understandings, practices, and observances of
several major North Indian bhakti movements and permeates popular Hindu
culture through its use in liturgy, ritual, recitation, temple architecture, and
so on.20 All of the above affords only a superficial hint regarding “what sort
of thing is the Bhāgavata?” In the remaining chapters of this book, we will
attempt to plumb just a small portion of the Bhāgavata’s depths. And to do
so in an organized and consistent way, we will center our discussion around
one of the Bhāgavata’s most significant and versatile themes: māyā—a
Sanskrit term that has many meanings, but which in the Bhāgavata
primarily refers to the multi-purpose energy, potency, or power of God.
Māyā in the Bhāgavata Purāa
The nineteenth-century German philosopher Paul Deussen famously stated
that there is no doctrine more central to Indian thought than that of māyā.21
Going a step further, the eminent Sanskritist Daniel Ingalls called māyā
“one of the most beautiful concepts in the history of religion.”22 Although
māyā has a significant presence in Indian sacred literature, the concept has
received sparse academic attention, most of which has focused on
Śakara’s nondual understanding of māyā as “illusion” or “appearance.”
The term māyā, however, has held a variety of meanings; and, in the
Bhāgavata, māyā plays a far more complex, manifold, and profound role
than is indicated by the Śakara school.
A major aim of this book is to provide an overview of māyā’s rich
conceptual history, beginning with the term’s usage in the Rgveda, the
oldest of India’s sacred texts, and continuing with its usage in the
Upaniads, the Mahābhārata (including the Bhagavad-gītā), and Śakara’s
nondualist Śārīraka-bhāya (all discussed in Chapter 2). It then proceeds to
focus on the highly developed conception of māyā found within the
Bhāgavata itself, which describes māyā’s pivotal role in relation to three
fundamental aspects of reality: (1) the temporal realm (the perceivable
material sphere); (2) the conditioned living beings (the “deluded” selves
that reside in the temporal realm); and (3) the absolute realm (where Kṛṣṇa
and his unalloyed devotees are said to eternally reside).
Here it is important to note that while Vedānta philosophy often conceives
of māyā as a negative, deluding force, the Bhāgavata most often affirms just
the opposite: in relation to the temporal realm, māyā is said to be that
energy by which Kṛṣṇa manifests the elements and transforms them into
the plurality of universes, bodies, senses, and minds that constitute the
phenomenal world (discussed in Chapter 3); in relation to the deluded living
beings, māyā’s illusioning is said to be for the ultimate upliftment and
liberation of those that she has bound to the cycle of birth and death
(discussed in Chapter 4); and in relation to the absolute realm, māyā is said
to serve as a facilitator and enhancer of the exchange of unalloyed bhakti
between Kṛṣṇa and his most intimate devotees (discussed in Chapter 5).
While the Bhāgavata discusses other key topics (e.g., bhakti, līlā, and
sa
sāra), it will be shown that these theological ideas are also integrally
connected to the Bhāgavata’s rich conception of māyā.
As previously noted, both traditional and modern scholars of Indic thought
have often presented māyā as a deluding force that leads individual selves
away from God, miring them more deeply in temporal existence. In
contrast, the Bhāgavata (in both its
khya philosophy and its k
ṛṣṇ
a-līlā
narratives) presents māyā as a powerful creative force that ultimately draws
all souls toward God and facilitates their relationship with him. In this
characterization of māyā, the Bhāgavata presents a perspective on women
that is contrary to much of conservative Hindu thought (discussed in
Chapter 6) as well as a unique understanding of the problem of human
suffering (discussed in Chapter 7) and the attainment of ultimate liberation
(discussed in Chapter 8).
The Bhāgavata traces its authorship to Vyāsa and its content to his
meditative vision, which forms the foundation and inspiration for the
Purāa. The text’s doctrine of māyā is extensive and complex, and it is
essential to the Purāa’s theology. Indeed, māyā’s extensive role is
mentioned at the very outset of the Purāa, in its description of the above
referenced meditative vision, which will be thoroughly discussed in Chapter
3.23 Another of the Bhāgavata’s interesting aspects concerns the observation
that it is not only a Vedānta text (the standard view), but a Sākhya text as
well. This will be primarily demonstrated in Chapter 3, where we compare
the Bhāgavata’s Sākhya system to that of classical Sākhya, specifically
with regard to such standard Sākhya categories as puru
a (the individual
self), prak
ti (the physical world), aha
kāra (false identification), the
gu
as (qualitative energies), the 23 elements, and so forth.
The Bhāgavata’s Narratives as a
Theological Lens
Any significant study of the Bhāgavata’s theology must include a study of
its narratives, for the Purāa’s narratives are a lens through which to study
its theology. This book makes extensive use of these narratives, which are
multifaceted, and thus require a multifaceted approach to their critical
analysis. We begin here by asking whether the work contains one particular
overarching narrative (or framing story), and answering this question in the
affirmative.
The Bhāgavata’s framing story begins where the Mahābhārata leaves off.
King Parīkit, the grandson of Arjuna, is cursed by the son of a brāhma
a
to die in seven days. Upon receiving the news, the king, who is a great
devotee of Kṛṣṇa, actually welcomes the curse as a perfect opportunity to
end all worldly affairs and concentrate on spiritual advancement.
Immediately he renounces his kingship, all his worldly possessions, and
even his most intimate familial ties, and makes his way to the Ganges,
firmly determined to focus his attention on God while fasting until death.
At that time, hearing of the king’s circumstance and extraordinary vow, the
greatest sages of the universe transport themselves to that shore so as to
associate with this foremost devotee of Kṛṣṇa until he returns to his Lord’s
eternal abode. After humbly acknowledging the kind presence of these
advanced personages, the king begins making spiritual inquires when,
suddenly, a final visitor arrives. It is Śuka-deva, the fully enlightened
teenage son of Vyāsa, who is respectfully greeted by all, due to his exalted
spiritual status, and is then encouraged to place himself on the seat of honor
as the assembly’s prime speaker—the one chosen among them to respond to
the questions of the king.
Parīkit bows before Śuka-deva with folded hands and inquires as to the
way of perfection for all human beings, and especially for those that are
about to die (Figure 1.1): “What should one hear, chant, remember, and
worship,” asks the king, “and what things should one eschew?”24 Being
very much pleased by the king’s questions, the spiritually gifted son of
Vyāsa, who is fully conversant with the principles of religion, begins to
reply, leading to a series of questions and answers that fully occupies the
remaining seven days of the king’s life. That series of questions and
answers will lead to another, and another, and yet another layer of questions
and answers, until those layers grow to become the book that is the subject
of this inquiry—the book known as the Bhāgavata Purāa.
image
Figure 1.1 Parīkit bows before Śuka-deva and inquires as to the way of
perfection for all human beings, and especially for those that are about to
die.
A secondary but equally important discourse takes place between Sūta and
the sages of Naimiāraya. Sūta had been present on the bank of the
Ganges during the original discourse between King Parīkit and Śuka-deva,
and due to his photographic memory (a common feature of ancient Indic
sages) he is able to repeat the entirety of that discourse verbatim as a way of
ameliorating the negative effects of Kali-yuga, the present “dark age of
quarrel and hypocrisy.”25
Apart from these two framing conversations, there is no other narrative that
ties together the entire Bhāgavata Purāa, which consists of twelve books
(or “cantos”). Each book focuses on a variety of narratives, discourses, and
prayers that center around various avatāras (e.g., Kṛṣṇa, Viṣṇu, Kapila,
Varāha, Nsiha, etc.) and their devotees. The exception is the tenth book,
which is exclusively focused on Kṛṣṇa’s līlās and extraordinary deeds. The
Bhāgavata’s characteristic narrative style can be best described as layered,
in the sense that one narrative embeds (or is embedded by) another, which,
in its turn, embeds (or is embedded by) a third, and so on. Sūta, for
example, conveys a particular narrative that had been conveyed by Śuka-
deva to King Parīkit, which had been previously conveyed by the sage
Maitreya to Vidura, which had been originally conveyed by Kṛṣṇa to his
intimate friend and advisor Uddhava. While a comprehensive study of the
Bhāgavata’s complex array of narratives is beyond the scope of this book, at
least some of the more prominent tales will be detailed and assessed in
terms of the theological and philosophical meanings they impart—
meanings that are brought into sharp focus through the Bhāgavata’s rich
storytelling lens.
A Word about Sources
The Bhāgavata has been disseminated by means of a longstanding
commentarial tradition that has interpreted the text for application in a
number of extant religious communities. Although a primary goal of this
book is to allow the Bhāgavata to speak for and of itself, references to both
Western scholarship and Vaiṣṇava interpretative traditions were necessary,
and in fact have greatly enhanced our discussion and analysis of key
philosophical, ontological, and theological points. The specific aim of this
section is to delineate this book’s Vaiṣṇava commentarial sources, as our
choices were limited by the availability of relevant material.
In his book, Krishna, the Beautiful Legend of God, Edwin Bryant
characterizes the Bhāgavata as an “unambiguously Vaiṣṇava Purāa,”26
and we would add that it is unambiguously focused on Kṛṣṇa, who is
presented as the cause of all causes, the original form of God. What is the
significance and what are the implications of this brand of Kṛṣṇa-centered
monotheism? To answer this question will require a very brief history of
Vedānta, the most prominent among all the primary schools of thought in
Indian history. We can begin by defining the term.
Vedānta (literally, “the end of the Vedas”) is one of the six orthodox schools
of Indic thought, wherein the term generally refers to the philosophy of the
Upaniads and the schools of interpretation that developed from these most
ancient texts. In their conceptualizations, these interpretative schools posit
differing views regarding the relationship between three ontological
categories: brahman (the ultimate metaphysical reality); ātman (the
individual self, or soul); and, prak
ti (the perceivable world of transient
material form). And in doing so, they often fall into two major divisions of
thought. The first is the monistic (advaita) school, which was found by
Śakara and propagated throughout the centuries by various branches of
followers; and the second is the Vaiṣṇava personalist school, which, over
the centuries, has propagated a variety of dualistic or nondualist theories
regarding the relationship between brahman, ātman, and prak
ti (see
Chapter 2).
Among the Vaiṣṇava personalists, several of the more prominent schools
are as follows: the viśi
ṣṭ
ādvaita school developed by Ramanuja (c. 1017–
1137), the founder of the Śrī Sampradāya, whose ontology largely relies
upon the authority of the Viṣṇu Purāa (similar in content to the
Bhāgavata); the dvaita school developed by Madhva (c. 1238–1317), the
founder of the Brahmā Sampradāya, who not only studied the Bhāgavata,
but also commented on it in his Bhāgavata-tatparya;27 the śuddhādvaita
school developed by Vallabha (1479–1531), who considered himself a
follower of Viṣṇu Svāmī’s Rudra Sampradāya; and finally, the acintya-
bheda-abheda school developed by Caitanya (c. 1486–1534), who aligned
himself with Madhva’s Brahmā Sampradāya, largely due to Madhva’s
vehement opposition to monism and his focus on Kṛṣṇa as opposed to
Viṣṇu. Let us now see how this relates to extant commentaries on the
Bhāgavata Purāa.
There are said to be eighteen primary Purāas, among which the Bhāgavata
Purāa is one. However, most of these Purāas have never been subject to
systematic commentarial analysis, while the remaining few, such as the
Viṣṇu Purāa, have been commented upon only once or twice. As one
might suspect or already know, the exception is the Bhāgavata Purāa, for
which there are 81 extant commentaries (and many more, of which only the
names have survived).28 The reasons for this can be found more within than
outside the Vaiṣṇava personalist traditions, since it has been the Vaiṣṇavas
themselves that have generated almost all of these commentaries. We here
list three of the more prominent reasons for this singular focus: (1) unlike
other Purāas, the Bhāgavata identifies Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu, as the supreme
being—a perspective that aligns with the understandings of the above
described Vaiṣṇava Sampradāyas, especially those that have generated the
most numerous and important commentaries on the text; (2) the
Bhāgavata’s presentation of this Kṛṣṇa-centered form of monotheism is of
a highly sophisticated nature and is bolstered by philosophical explanations
and arguments; and, (3) the Bhāgavata claims that its content represents the
cream or essence of Vedāntic knowledge. Now, a word about extant
Bhāgavata commentaries.
Two schools of Vedāntic thought have been mentioned above, the first of
which is Śakara’s nondualist (advaita) school. While extremely influential
in the history of Indic philosophy, this school can be set aside when it
comes to the Bhāgavata since there are virtually no monist commentaries on
a work which posits a conception of Brahman that is antithetical to the
monist view. This leaves the commentaries of the Vaiṣṇava Personalists,
the oldest of which are Madhva’s (1238–1317 ce) Bhāgavata-tātparya-
nir
aya29 and Śrīdhara Svāmi’s Bhāvārtha-bodhinī (1325 ce).30 Both are
works of the high middle ages, yet of the two, Śrīdhara Svāmi’s
commentary has become the most known and influential, largely because
Caitanya’s renaissance acintya-bheda-abheda school accepted it as most
authoritative, and he and his followers referred to it extensively in their own
teachings and writings.
Here a word of clarification regarding Śrīdhara Svāmi’s position is in order.
Many modern scholars and historians have suggested, in this regard, that
Śridhara Svāmī may have come from the monist tradition and then later
converted to Vaiṣṇavism, becoming a member of Viṣṇu Svāmī’s Rudra-
sampradāya. This seems to be affirmed by his commentaries, which reflect
a philosophic perspective that is in keeping more with a bheda-abheda than
an advaita view of reality.
Apart from the high medieval commentaries of Madhva and Śrīdhara
Svāmī, there is Vallabha’s (1479–1531 ce) Subodhini, a renaissance
Bhāgavata commentary, of which only books 1, 2, 3, and 10 are available.
After this, the most well-known and readily accessible Bhāgavata
commentaries (and treatises) were almost exclusively authored by members
of the Caitanya tradition (the “Gauīya” Vaiṣṇavas), many of whom were
from the region of Bengal. Along with Śrīdhara Svāmi’s commentary, those
are the ones that have been most relied upon in this book. They are as
follows: (1) Rūpa Gosvāmī’s (1489–1564 ce) treatise, Bhakti-rasām
ta-
sindhu; (2) Sanātana Gosvāmī’s (1488–1558 ce) tenth book Bhāgavata
commentary, Daśama-tippani; (3) Jīva Gosvāmī’s (1513–1596 ce)
Bhāgavata commentary, Krama-sandarbha; (4) Viśvanātha Cakravartī
hākura’s (1626–1708 ce) Bhāgavata commentary, Sārārtha-Darśinī, one
of the most extensive and detailed of the available commentaries; (5)
Bhaktivinode Thakurs (1883–1914 ce) English-language treatise, The
Bhāgavata: Its Philosophy, Its Ethics, and Its Theology; and (6) A. C.
Bhaktivedānta’s (1896–1977 ce) English-language translations of both the
Bhāgavata and the Caitanya-caritāmta (authored by Kṛṣṇa dasa Kavirāja,
1496–1588 ce), both of which include extensive commentaries (or
purports). Among these, Viśvanātha’s commentary has been particularly
relied upon because it contains numerous interesting discussions on the
Bhāgavata’s various notions of māyā, and especially yoga-māyā.
In closing, we should mention one relatively unique feature of this book. To
date, much of Western scholarship has focused on Śrīdhara Svāmi’s
Bhāgavata commentary to the neglect of the more recent Gauīya
Vaiṣṇava commentaries, largely because Śrīdhara’s commentary was
thought to reflect the popular monist understanding of Indic philosophy. By
introducing these various Vaiṣṇava personalist commentaries and treatises,
this book aims to redress this seeming imbalance.
Māyā in the Bhāgavata Purāņa: Human Suffering and Divine Play. Gopal
K. Gupta, Oxford University Press (2020).
© Gopal K. Gupta. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198856993.001.0001
1 Bhaktivinode Thakur, The Bhagavata: Its Philosophy, Its Ethics, and Its
Theology (Guardian of Devotion Press 1985).
2 Daniel H. H. Ingalls, “Foreword,” in Noel Sheth, The Divinity of Krishna
(New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1984), xii.
3 H. H. Wilson, Kanhaiyalala Josi, and Vyasa, Sri Visnupuranam, 1st ed.,
Parimal Sanskrit Series (Delhi: Parimal Publications, reprint 2002).
4 M. Winternitz, A History of Indian Literature, 2 vols. (New York: Russell
& Russell, 1971).
5 J. A. B. van Buitenen and Ludo Rocher, Studies in Indian Literature and
Philosophy: Collected Articles of J.A.B. Van Buitenen (Delhi: American
Institute of Indian Studies: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988).
6 Wendy Doniger, Purana Perennis: Reciprocity and Transformation in
Hindu and Jaina Texts (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press,
1993).
7 Greg Bailey, “Puranas,” Oxford University Press,
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-
9780195399318/obo-9780195399318-0043.xml#firstMatch.
8 Wilson, Josi, and Vyasa, Sri Visnupuranam.
9 Cheever Mackenzie Brown, The Triumph of the Goddess: The Canonical
Models and Theological Visions of the Devi-Bhagavata Purana, Suny
Series in Hindu Studies (Albany: State University of New York Press,
1990).
10 R. Adriaensen, Hans Bakker, and H. Isaacson, The Skandapurana,
Supplement to Groningen Oriental Studies (Groningen: E. Forsten, 1998).
Hans Bakker, Origin and Growth of the Puranic Text Corpus: With Special
Reference to the Skandapurana, 1st Indian ed., Papers of the 12th World
Sanskrit Conference, Held in Helsinki, Finland, 13–18 July, 2003 (Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2004).
11 Eugene Burnouf, Hauvette-Besnault, and Alfred Roussel, Le Bhagavata
Purana: Ou, Histoire Portique De Krichna, 5 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie
royale, 1840).
12 Edwin F. Bryant, Krishna, the Beautiful Legend of God: Śrīmad
Bhāgavata Purā
a, Book X: With Chapters 1, 6, and 29–31 from Book Xi,
Penguin Classics (London: Penguin Books, 2003).
13 Graham M. Schweig, Dance of Divine Love: The Rāsa Līlā of Krishna
from the Bhāgavata Purā
a, Indias Classic Sacred Love Story (Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005).
14 Rick Jarow, Tales for the Dying (New York: SUNY 2003).
15 BhP 1.1.3 nigama-kalpa-taror galita
phala
śuka-mukhād am
ta-
drava-sa
yutam pibata bhāgavata
rasam ālayam muhur aho rasikā
bhuvi bhāvukā
.
16 Gupta and Valpey, The Bhāgavata Purā
a, Selected Readings (New
York: Columbia University Press, 2017), 21.
17 W. C. Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion, (London: SPCK, 1978),
156–7.
18 Rick Jarow, Tales for the Dying: The Death Narrative of the Bhāgavata
Purā
a, Suny Series in Hindu Studies (Albany: State University of New
York Press, 2003), 35.
19 Bryant, Krishna, the Beautiful Legend of God, lxvii.
20 Bryant, Krishna, the Beautiful Legend of God, lxvii.
21 Paul Deussen. The Philosophy of the Upanishads. Translated by A. S.
Geden. Religion and Philosophy of India. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1906),
1.
22 Daniel H. H. Ingalls, “Foreword,” in Noel Sheth, The Divinity of Krishna
(New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1984), xii.
23 Bhāgavata Purā
a (BhP) 1.7.2–4.
24 BhP 1.19.38.
25 BhP 12.12.56.
26 Bryant, Krishna, the Beautiful Legend of God, xiii.
27 Sardella and Ghosh, “Modern Reception and Text Migration of the
Bhāgavata Purāa,” in The Bhāgavata Purā
a: Sacred Text and Living
Tradition, ed. Ravi M. Gupta and Kenneth R. Valpey (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2013), 222.
28 Bryant, Krishna, the Beautiful Legend of God, xii.
29 Madhva comments upon some 1,600 of the Purāa’s 18,000 verses.
30 Daniel P. Sheridan, The Advaitic Theism of the Bhāgavata Purā
a, 1st
ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1986), 118.
4
Māyā in Relation to the Human
Condition
Of Dreams and Allegorical Themes
For thousands of years, in both the east and the west, poets, philosophers,
and thinkers of all stripes have been fascinated by the experience of
dreaming, including the unsettling possibility that our so-called “waking
life” is also merely a dream. Zhuangzi famously depicts the paradox as
follows:
I, Zhuangzi, once dreamed I was a butterfly, fluttering to and fro …
following my butterfly whims. I was conscious only of my happiness as a
butterfly, unaware that I was the man, Zhuangzi. Soon I awoke, and there I
was, veritably ‘myself’ again. But now I am left wondering whether I was
then a man dreaming I was a butterfly or whether I am now a butterfly
dreaming I am a man.1
Although dreaming and waking states are in some ways similar and in some
ways different, they hold in common one striking feature that casts doubt on
the “reality” of waking life—i.e., the relatively ephemeral nature of the
experience. This notwithstanding, most individuals do distinguish between
dreaming and waking, largely based on the empirical fact of “waking up
from a dream.” Thus, they consider as “real” their daily regular experience
of family, friendship, work, society, and so forth (which remains relatively
consistent throughout the years of their lives), whereas they consider as
“unreal” their nightly irregular experience of the rather unpredictable and
disjointed realm of dreams (which appear to emerge with a new content
each evening).
Plato himself addresses the matter of dreaming and waking life in the
dialogue Theaetetus, where Socrates asks, “What proof could you give if
anyone should ask us now, at the present moment, whether we are asleep
and our thoughts are a dream, or whether we are awake and talking with
each other in a waking condition?”2 Theaetetus admits that their own
discussion could be something they are imagining in their sleep. Socrates
concludes, “So you see, it is even open to dispute whether we are awake or
in a dream.”3 According to Plato, no one can definitively prove that they are
not dreaming; thus those that are wise never assume that they are, in that
sense, awake.
Looking at the matter from a slightly different angle in the Republic, Plato
implies that, apart from a few philosophers, everyone in the world is
actually asleep: “The man who does not believe that there is such a thing as
absolute beauty is dreaming even when he is physically awake, since he
believes that something that is merely a likeness of something else is
actually the thing itself; the man who does not make such a mistake is
awake.”4 In this view, only those that come to the point of realizing that
they are factually dreaming are truly awake.
Acceptance of the possibility that the waking state is a different state of
dreaming entails acceptance of the notion that when we dream we are
dreaming within a dream—that when we awaken from our dreams, we
awaken into another dream. The riddle of the dream within a dream is
found in the works of George Berkeley, Pedro Calderon (Lifes a Dream)
and William Shakespeare, and has been discussed by Roger Caillois in the
“Logical and Philosophical Problems of the Dream.” Caillois writes:
Someone, in a dream, wakes up—or rather believes that he has awakened,
although he continues to dream—and now lies expecting another
awakening, which this time may be real but may also be as illusionary as
the first. In this way he will be transported from one dream to another, from
one awakening to another, without ever being absolutely certain whether he
has finally arrived at the true awakening, the one that will restore him to the
world of reality.5
The relationship between the dreaming and the waking state is a problem
that has benefited from a long and complex philosophical history that is by
no means unique to Western literature. The problem has been elaborately
discussed in both China and Japan, and is found in Islamic and Spanish
sources as well. It also finds an overwhelming presence in Indic texts.
Indeed, O’Flaherty considers the theme of the “dream within a dream” to
have originated in India:
When we look more closely at the distribution of this theme, we begin to
see a pattern, a complex mandala that has India as its centre. While Plato
was expounding the idealism that we think of as Platonic, Indian sages were
composing the even more idealistic Upanishads. The Chinese and Japanese
stories were based on tales carried to the Far East by Indian Buddhists; and
Spanish stories were retellings of tales brought by Islamic traders from
India. Moreover, whereas the story of the dreamer dreamt was regarded in
the West primarily as an exotic delicacy, an appetizer to titillate the mind
for a while before one got down to serious philosophizing, in India it was
the main course, philosophically speaking; it was taken very seriously
indeed, as an elusive clue to a real truth.6
O’Flaherty certainly has a point in this regard, as we find complex
discussions on this theme in numerous Indic philosophical and theological
texts, including the Bhāgavata Purāa.
As with most Indic literatures, the Bhāgavata employs metaphors to explain
its philosophical doctrines, and the dream experience is the primary
metaphor used to describe māyā’s deluding power. The Bhāgavata
considers the human condition to be a condition of dreaming, with the word
svapna (dream) appearing well over sixty times throughout its pages, and
the Bhāgavata is certainly not unique in this regard. In the Vedas and in
many of the Upaniads (e.g., Kaha, Kena, Chāndogya) one finds the
following exhortations: tamasi mā jyotir gamāyā (“Do not stay in darkness,
come to the light”), utti
ṣṭ
ha (“Get up”!), jāgrata (“awaken”!). And
Schopenhauer observes that “the Vedas and Purāas know no better simile
for the whole knowledge of the actual world, called by them the web of
māyā, than the dream, and they use none more frequently.”7
In various places throughout the Bhāgavata one finds comparisons between
the fall of the eternal individual self (ātman) and the “fall” of the sleeper (as
in “falling asleep”). When dreaming, our consciousness and sense of
identity become wrapped up in the affairs of our temporary dream life,
while we remain wholly unaware of the identity (or “self”) that is lying
snuggly in bed; when awake, our consciousness and sense of identity
become similarly wrapped up in the affairs of this temporary bodily life,
while we remain wholly unaware of the identity (or “self”) that constitutes
our true eternal nature. Just as a sleeping person mistakenly identifies with
the transitory “stuff” of the world of dreams, so does the ātman, under the
influence of māyā, mistakenly identify with the transitory “stuff” of the
world of matter. As noted by Prospero in Shakespeare’s The Tempest:
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, as I fortold you, were all spirits
and are melted into air, into thin air; and, like the baseless fabric of this
vision, the cloud-capp’d towers, the gorgeous palaces, the solemn temples,
the great globe itself, [and] ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve and, like
this insubstantial pageant faded, leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
as dreams are made of, and our little life is rounded with a sleep [4.1.146–
61].8
The Bhāgavata elaborates on this condition as follows:
O king! For the pure soul in pure consciousness, there is no relation with
phenomenal objects [such as the body]. [That relation is perceived] only
under the influence of…[Kṛṣṇa’s] māyā, exactly like one who perceives
within a dream. [Such an illusioned soul] assumes multifarious forms,
manifested by splendorous, multi-formed māyā, and while enjoying among
the gu
as, thinks [always] in terms of ‘I’ and ‘mine.’ Only when [that
illusioned soul] comes to enjoy in his own glory, which is beyond time and
māyā, will he then give up both [misconceptions of ‘I’ and ‘mine’] and
remain unentangled, free from delusion.9
In other words, māyā employs the sense objects of this world to bewilder
and entangle eternal individual selves, thus preventing them from realizing
their true nature as ātman. The bonds of illusion are typically described in
terms of attachment to one’s body, spouse, children, home, and wealth, with
māyā being that which causes the eternal self to identify with the temporary
body and its related objects. Thus the eternal self becomes engrossed in a
world of temporary names and forms.
As already noted, the Bhāgavata often compares life within the temporal
realm (the mere reflection of the absolute realm) to a dream, and spiritual
emancipation to awakening from that dream. The Bhāgavata, for example,
compares the association of children, spouse, relatives, and friends to the
brief meeting of travelers, perhaps at a roadside inn. When one passes away
at death, one is separated from all such connections, just as one abruptly
loses all the objects of a dream once the dream is over.10 In another place
the Bhāgavata notes that while sleeping, one’s mind manifests an alternate
reality of various names and forms; being so absorbed, one forgets one’s
waking life, which is distinct from the dream. This is compared to one
whose consciousness is bewildered by illusion, and thus perceives only the
names and forms of temporary material objects; being so absorbed, one
forgets one’s true spiritual identity, which is distinct from the dream of
waking life, and cannot know Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Person.11
As for equating spiritual emancipation with awakening from a dream, the
Bhāgavata advises the family man to associate with saintly persons,
faithfully listen to the enchanting pastimes of Kṛṣṇa and his avatāras, and
in this way rise above attachment to body, spouse, and sons like one
awakening from a dream.12 Having thus awakened, the most fortunate are
able to enter the realm of Vraja, Kṛṣṇa’s pastoral abode—the highest of the
eternal realms, all of which are said to be distinct from the transitory world
of ordinary experience. In the twenty-first chapter of book ten, one finds a
brief description of this ultimate state of reality, which is said to be
comprised of irreducible conscious form (more about this in Chapter 5).
There it is said that the eternal inhabitants of that deathless realm ever
imbibe the beautiful faces of Kṛṣṇa and his elder brother Balarāma,
charmingly dressed and decorated with garlands, peacock feathers, lotuses,
lilies, newly grown mango sprouts, and clusters of flower buds. Holding
their flutes to their mouths and glancing lovingly around, they enter the
forest, surrounded by their immortal friends, driving the cows before them.
Hearing the entrancing sound of Kṛṣṇa’s flute, rivers run backwards, the
moving become stunned, and the nonmoving tremble in ecstacy. In this and
a thousand other ways, Vraja expands its glory in everlasting joy.13
The Allegorical City of Nine Gates
This section examines in greater detail the questions touched upon in the
above section on dreaming and waking life, and it does so by means of the
Bhāgavata’s largest and most complex allegory—that of Purañjana and the
City of Nine Gates. The questions to be addressed by means of this allegory
are of paramount concern to the Bhāgavata, and they are central to its
account of māyā and the human condition: What is the self? Why does the
eternally transcendent self misidentify with temporary matter? How does it
come to do so? In the Purañjana narrative, of course, the City of Nine Gates
is the physical body and Purañjana is the eternal self that inhabits (or is
embodied by) that city. The purpose of the allegory is to illustrate the
eternal selfs entanglement in the cycle of birth and death as well as to
examine the nature of the world in which the self is entangled.14
The Purañjana allegory is of particular relevance to both Sākhya and
māyā. It appears in the Purāa’s fourth book and follows an extensive
discussion on Sākhya, which occurs in book three.15 Most commentators
agree that this is no coincidence, since the Purañjana allegory serves as a
practical illustration of that rather technical and abstract discussion—as
well as a demonstration of its soteriological dimension. The Bhāgavata’s
khya discussions are used to address the larger question of how eternal
individual selves “fall” into and identify with the temporal realm. And, as
we shall see, every element of the Purañjana allegory corresponds to an
element of Bhāgavata-sā
khya, thus endowing that system with meaning
as it relates to the human condition.
Interestingly, referring to the physical body in metaphorical terms as “the
City of Nine Gates” is not restricted to the Bhāgavata alone; the reference is
found both in the Bhagavad-gītā16 and in Īśvarakṛṣṇa’s Sākhya-kārikā.17
In the Bhāgavata, Nārada first narrates the allegorical tale to King
Prācīnabarhi. The tale is then retold by Maitreya to Vidura, by Śukadeva to
King Parīkit, and finally by Sūta Gosvāmī to Śaunaka and the sages of
Naimiāraya. The allegory is meaningful on two levels: (1) as a concrete
illustration of the life, death, and rebirth of Purañjana (literally, “the
embodied being”), who partakes of the world’s pleasures and pains,
oblivious of his precarious temporal condition (not unlike the “Everyman”
of medieval European morality plays); and (2) as a symbolic illustration of
the inner life of the eternal self as it identifies with the temporary physical
body and its nine apertures, which draws an analogy between the eternal
selfs experience in the body and the human experience in the world.
Put simply, the allegory is concerned with four philosophical issues: the
nature of the world, the nature of the self, the nature of the embodied selfs
experience in the world, and the manner in which that experience comes
about—with māyā playing a central role in the explanation of all four
matters. And so, without further ado, please find below the allegorical tale
of Purañjana and the City of Nine Gates:
* * *
Once there was a king named Purañjana who wandered the world in search
of the perfect place, accompanied by Avijñāta-sakhā, an unknown and
mysterious friend. Eventually he came upon Nava-dvāra-pura (literally, “the
City of Nine Gates”), which he found to be quite attractive. The city, which
contained numerous towers, canals, buildings, and roads, was surrounded
by walls and parks. Its houses had domes of gold, silver and iron, with
floors inlaid with sapphire, crystal, diamonds, pearls, and emeralds.18 Birds
and bees sang sweetly and the air was misted with water from waterfalls
flowing from a snowy mountain peak.19
As Purañjana made his way through the gardens of the city, he encountered
a strikingly beautiful woman accompanied by ten male servants, each of
whom had hundreds of wives;20 a five-hooded serpant guarded her person
all around. Purañjana was attracted to her, and she was attracted to him, for
she was in search of a husband. Purañjana asked about her identity, origin
and purpose, but the woman professed ignorance. Instead, she tried to focus
Purañjana’s mind on sensual delights.
Captivated by the woman’s attractive features, the king accepted her as his
queen, and soon became preoccupied with pleasing her and enjoying the
pleasures of sex. Purañjana ruled his opulent city in great comfort,
surrounded by servants, family, and friends, to whom he became very much
attached. Desires for enjoyment preoccupied his mind, and pursuing their
fulfillment became his primary aim in life.
The queen was the center of Purañjana’s enjoyment and very existence. In
all his activities, the king followed her lead: when the queen drank, he
drank; when she dined, he dined; when she sang, he sang; when she cried,
he cried; when she laughed, he laughed; when she walked, he walked
behind, and so forth.21 Thus, the king came under the queen’s full control,
imitating her actions “like a pet animal kept for amusement.”22
One day, King Purañjana equipped himself with golden armor, his great
bow, and an inexhaustible quiver of arrows, and went to the forest named
Pañca-prastha on a chariot driven by five swift horses. Ordinarily, the king
never gave up the company of his queen even for a moment. Nonetheless,
on that day, being driven by the desire to hunt, he took up his bow and
arrow, and with great pride went to the forest, not caring for his queen. At
that time Purañjana was greatly influenced by an evil disposition, and thus
his heart became hard and merciless.23 With sharp arrows he killed many
innocent animals in the forest with no consideration for their suffering.
Upon seeing these devastating, ghastly activities of the king, “all the people
who were merciful by nature became very unhappy.”24
After some time, the king became fatigued, hungry, and thirsty, and
returned to his royal palace. He took his bath and went to sleep. Upon
awakening and decorating his body with suitable ornaments, Purañjana
began to search for his queen. Unable to find her, the king became anxious
and inquired from the household maidservants, “Where is that charming
lady who, at every step, illuminated my intelligence and lifted me up while
I was drowning in a sea of miseries?”25 The women responded to the king,
“O King, just look, she is lying on the bare ground [in anger].”26
With an aggrieved and regretful mind, the king went to his wife and began
speaking pleasing words to pacify her: “Be gracious unto me, your good
friend. Because I was mad with the passion for hunting, I offended you by
going out to hunt by myself without asking your permission.”27
Pacified by his sweet words, the queen brought the submissive Purañjana
fully under her control, delighting him with her womanly charms.
Purañjana and his queen begot eleven hundred sons and eleven hundred
daughters, all of whom were duly married. Thereafter, each of Purañjana’s
sons begot one hundred sons of their own, thus populating the city with an
abundance of offspring. As the king enjoyed these pleasures “his youth
passed away as if in a half minute,”28 and little did he realize that he was
quickly approaching death.
Soon the City of Nine Gates was attacked by a powerful king named
Caṇḍavega, who commanded an army of 360 male Gandharva soldiers and
their 360 female companions. The five-headed serpent tried to fight the
attackers for one hundred years but eventually became weak, worrying the
king and his associates. Caṇḍavega’s daughter Kālakanyā and his son
Prajvāra then imperceptibly joined the attack, escaping Purañjana’s notice.
Over time Purañjana lost his youth, beauty, and intelligence. As the soldiers
plundered his possessions, his family, ministers, and citizens began to
oppose him, and his wife became cold and indifferent. Although the king
had no desire to leave, he was forced to do so by circumstances. Prajvāra
set the city on fire, terrorizing the citizens and causing the king much grief.
Purañjana began to think of his family, home, belongings, and wealth. How
would his affectionate wife and children live in his absence? Who would
maintain them? As the king lamented in this way, Kālakanyā’s husband,
Yavana, bound King Purañjana and took him away along with the serpent
and the king’s followers. Once the king had gone, the city turned to dust.
Unfortunately, while being dragged away, Purañjana could not remember
his powerful and intimate friend, Avijñāta, and instead, thought only of his
wife.
Due to his attachment to the queen, Purañjana next took birth as a woman
named Vaidarbhī, who became the queen of King Malayadhvaja. At the end
of his life, King Malayadhvaja retired to the forest to practice yoga and
soon achieved liberation (mok
a). Queen Vaidarbhī became overwhelmed
with grief at her husband’s death. As she lamented piteously, a brāhma
a
approached her and introduced himself as her “eternal friend.” Unknown to
her, he had accompanied her in all her previous births:
Don’t you recognize me as the unknown friend you used to roam about
with? … You left me because you wanted things, and became attached to
earthly pleasures. O noble one! You and I are swans, friends living in the
Mānasa Lake… You left me, friend, and with your heart set on carnal
pleasures, you arrived in the world. While roaming there, you saw a place
built by a certain woman.29 [The identity of that place and that woman are
central to the discussion and analysis that follows.]
“In this way,” the Bhāgavata concludes, Purañjana “is awakened and made
to realize his original state by his fellow swan. Once again in his original
nature, he regains the memory he had lost due to separation from his
unknown friend, the brāhma
a.”30
After Nārada finishes the tale, King Prācīnabarhi requests him to reveal its
inner meaning. Nārada’s explanation is brief, and thus interpreting the
various characters and their roles is a hermeneutical exercise in itself. The
following analysis draws upon the Bhāgavata’s Sākhya discussions, the
works of several commentators, Isvarakṛṣṇa’s Sākhya-kārika, and the
views of more recent Sākhya scholars.
Īśvara—the Eternal Friend
As discussed in the previous chapter, the Bhāgavata often uses various
names to refer to God, one of which is Īśvara. The Sanskrit word īśvara
derives from the root īś, meaning “to command” or “sovereignty.” It
appears six times in the Atharva-veda, and “refers in the oldest texts to a
personal but unnamed God.”31 In later literature, the term Īśvara was often
preferred in philosophical discourse and debates regarding the validity of
the concept of a personal creator.32 This is because, in contrast to names
such as Kṛṣṇa, Bhagavān, or Viṣṇu, it is seen more as a philosophical
category than as a specific personal reference to the supreme being.33 In the
Bhāgavata, īśvara is used to denote the philosophical category of “master”
or “controller,” and is sometimes used in reference to one of the subordinate
“gods” of the universe, such as Brahmā, who are controllers within the
limited sphere of their specific jurisdictions. The term can even sometimes
apply to the jīvas, who in a circumscribed sense are considered masters of
their individual bodies.34
The Bhāgavata subsumes the Vedic term Īśvara in its Sākhya framework
by assigning Īśvara a special category called śuddha-sattva (pure goodness)
or viśuddha-sattva (completely pure goodness). The term viśuddha-sattva is
found neither in classical nor in earlier Sākhya texts, and thus it is most
likely unique to the Bhāgavata. As noted in the previous chapter, the
temporal realm is gu
a-mayī, composed of the three gu
as, goodness,
passion, and darkness (sattva, rajas, and tamas). When there is a complete
absence of rajas and tamas, the Bhāgavata describes this state as pure
goodness (viśuddha-sattva). Kṛṣṇa’s eternal forms and the abodes of his
absolute realm (Vaikuṇṭha) are all said to be viśuddha-sattva:
Where there is neither rajas nor tamas, nor sattva that is mixed with either,
time has no power, nor does māyā [as the external energy] exist there, what
to speak of other [negative influences]! There the devotees of Hari are
worshipped by the gods and asuras.35
The notion of viśuddha-sattva is crucial to the Bhāgavata’s doctrine of
liberation. The Bhāgavata does not simply regard liberation as freedom
from the gu
as (as conceived in classical Sākhya), nor as oneness with
Brahman (as conceived in Advaita Vedānta). From the Bhāgavata’s
perspective, while both these forms of liberation provide freedom from
suffering, they do not provide the positive experience of ānanda (pleasure,
joy, bliss). The Bhāgavata considers the highest form of liberation to be
participation in Kṛṣṇa’s eternal līlā,36 and in this regard, it distinguishes
between material substance (composed of the gu
as) and spiritual
substance (composed of viśuddha-sattva). The Bhāgavata states that
Kṛṣṇa’s form and abode are completely pure goodness: 37
Your dhāma [form] is unchanging pure sattva, composed of virtue, and
devoid of rajas and tamas. This flux of gu
as, consisting of māyā and
bound up in ignorance, is not to be found in you.38
The Sanskrit term dhāma generally means abode. Here, however, Śrīdhara
glosses the word as being synonymous with svarūpa (form), thus stating
that both Kṛṣṇa’s form and abode are completely pure sattva. In other
passages in the Bhāgavata we find Brahmā, who is born from the lotus
flower emanating from Viṣṇu’s navel, also eulogizing the form of Viṣṇu as
pure sattva:
We gods and sages have been created by sattva, which constitutes the
beloved body of the Lord, yet even we do not know its subtle movement,
what to speak of the demons and others.39
According to the Bhāgavata, Kṛṣṇa’s abode and form (dhāma) exist not
only in the absolute realm of Vaikuṇṭha, but in the temporal realm as well,
where they are said to retain their pure viśuddha-sattva feature. Kṛṣṇa is
said to eternally reside in Mathurā,40 where he performs his various
childhood pastimes, and in Dvārakā,41 where he establishes his kingdom.
His being, which is manifest through its own energies, is said to be self-
luminous, one without a second, imperishable, eternally blissful, completely
pure and wholly purifying.42 Indeed, the Bhāgavata is emphatic that
Kṛṣṇa’s form and abode are forever free from any tinge of māyā—meaning
māyā’s feature as the agent that deludes and entangles those selves that are
desirous of artificially existing in separation from Kṛṣṇa. Here it is
important to note that māyā also has a feature that manifests in relation to
the affairs of the absolute realm, where those individuals that have never
turned away from Kṛṣṇa reside and exchange love with the cowherd boy
who is the supreme object of their affection. This function will be
elaborately discussed in Chapter 5.
Purañjana: The Embodied Self
The Purañjana narrative suggests that the eternal individual self is a person,
possessing all the sensory, mental, and intellectual faculties that are found
in the temporary physical and subtle bodies. The relationship between the
embodied self and the intellect, the carrier of the physical senses, is
allegorically presented as follows:
When she [the queen, buddhi] drank liquor, he drank. When she ate, he ate.
When she chewed, he chewed. He sang when she was singing, cried when
she was crying, laughed when she was laughing, and answered back when
she was speaking … He listened when she was listening, and looked at
what she was looking at. He smelled what she was smelling and what she
was touching, he touched.43
Here Purañjana is described as an embodied self that has forgotten his own
innate eternal nature due to his identifying with the Queen (the intellect)
and the City of Nine Gates (the temporary physical body). The narrative
implies that even when liberated from both the gross physical body and the
subtle senses, mind, and intellect, the eternal self nonetheless possesses a
non-material (metaphysical) body, with its own non-material (metaphysical)
senses, mind, and intellect. If this is presumed, however, we are faced with
a major potential problem: who or what is conscious of that body (or form)?
The narrative compares the physical body to a chariot, the senses to the
chairot’s five uncontrolled horses, the intellect to the chariot’s driver, and
the mind to the chariot’s reins, with the conscious self (the person) riding
inside as passenger.44 However, if it is proposed that the conscious self
possesses a non-material form, which includes senses, mind, and intellect,
one might inquire as to the nature of the “passenger” that is riding inside of
that chariot—i.e., who or what is perceiving through this non-material
form. In other words, first we posit a form constituted of matter through
which the conscious self perceives and functions in the temporal realm,
then we posit a form constituted of spirit (or non-matter). But then does the
conscious self perceive and function through this form as well? Here we
express a line of reasoning that obviously leads to the homunculus fallacy:
an argument that accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very
phenomenon it is supposed to explain, resulting in an infinite regress—a
sequence of reasoning or justification that can never come to an end.
The homunculus fallacy most commonly arises in connection with theories
of vision. When light from the outside world forms images on the retina
(like the images on a movie screen), who or what is watching the movie? If
one posits, as an answer, that there is some sort of conscious observer inside
the “head”—a homunculus, or “little man,” that perceives the images—one
is then faced with the problem of explaining how that “little man”
perceives. For those that adhere to the validity of this fallacy, the answer is
obvious: one must then posit the existence of another little man inside the
first one, and another little man inside that one, and so on and so forth ad
infinitum—that is, in an infinite regress.
One way of overcoming the infinite regress in causal analyses is to posit the
existence of a causeless first cause, and indeed this sort of argument has
been used by various theologians to argue for the existence of God (the
prime mover). In the case of the homunculus fallacy, however, we are
speaking of an infinite regress not of causes, but rather of conscious
perceivers or observers. Yet, as with causes, the only way around this sort
of problem is to posit a first conscious observer from whom no further
regressions are possible. Another way, of course, is to eliminate the
conscious observer entirely, as do many cognitive scientists and
philosophers who believe that consciousness is a mere epiphenomenon of
brain functioning which causes us to mistakenly presume a “ghost in the
machine.” Many monists and Buddhist would likely adhere to this view as
well. And since the Bhāgavata proposes that the eternal self (the conscious
observer within the body) does indeed possess a non-material personal form
—with its own innate senses, intelligence, and ability to perceive—we must
ask how the Bhāgavata meets the homunculus challenge?
The Bhāgavata posits that there is a fundamental qualitative difference
between temporary material forms and beginningless non-material forms. In
this view, the absolute realm consists of eternal conscious forms that are
irreducible in nature—conscious forms that are individual, personal, and
beginningless, like the original supreme form of Kṛṣṇa (God). In the
previous chapter, it was suggested that the Bhāgavata conceives of the
Absolute Truth as a complete person, who possesses all the faculties and
features that one normally associates with personhood, and yet who exists
perpetually beyond the realm of temporary material form in his own eternal
non-material abode. But what of the minute eternal selves that emanate
from that supreme person like ray-particles emanating from the sun.
Bhāgavata commentators have noted that as a drop of sea water contains the
same chemical composition as the sea itself, so do the minute eternal selves
contain the same fundamental nature as God himself. In other words,
according to the Bhāgavata, the transcendental form of the eternal self—
which includes intelligence, senses, and the ability to perceive—is nothing
like the form of matter that is a construction of the twenty-three elements of
the Sākhya system. It is not the glove, it is the hand; it is not the
reflection, it is the reflected; it is not the temporary physical encasing, it is
the fully free and liberated self—the very form of consciousness. Here,
then, we have an eternal conscious observer, with no beginning, middle, or
end, thus putting an end to the problem of infinite regress—a subject matter
that will be broached again in Chapter 5, but from a slightly different
avenue of approach.
For now, to shed a bit more light on a difficult topic, we can also view the
non-material self as a “simple entity”—a fundamental, irreducible, complex
particular, similar to Aristotle’s concept of “a kind.” In this view, despite the
fact that the non-material self possesses attributes such as form-ness,
consciousness, intelligence, mind, and senses, that self is an “irreducible
complex substance”—a “simple entity” consisting only of viśuddha-sattva.
In contrast, the non-material selfs temporary physical body has no unified
existence; rather, it is a “complex particular” consisting of a “bundle” of at
least twenty-three elements comprised of the three gu
as. In other words,
while the eternal, non-material form is an irreducible substance that
manifests certain properties, the temporary physical body (a machine made
of matter) can be reduced to its constituent parts (a primary project of the
physical sciences).
Moving on to a somewhat related matter, it should be noted that the
Purañjana narrative presents a view of the eternal self that is very different
from that of the non-theistic Sākhya-kārikā, which regards the “puru
as”
as unmingled (kaivalyam), indifferent (mādhya-sthyam) witnesses
(sāk
itvam)—non-agents (akart
-bhāva) that somehow possess the faculty
of sight (dra
ṣṭṛ
tvam).45 In this view, the puru
a is devoid of all action,
emotion, and will—it is not a “conscious self” in any normal sense of the
term. It is largely a detail, the presence of which serves to activate prak
ti
and nothing more—a type of non-entity entity.
In contrast, the Purañjana narrative posits an eternal self that possesses free
will and agency. Recall that although Purañjana’s general inclination is to
follow behind the queen, at one point he decides to go hunting alone
instead, accompanied by eleven “commanders,” representing the mind and
ten senses. This indicates that, from the Bhāgavata’s perspective, the self is
free to follow either the urges of the mind and senses or the guidance of the
intelligence—i.e., that it has volition and the capacity to choose.
When Purañjana returns from hunting, he regrets his decision and inquires
as to the whereabouts of his queen (the intelligence): “Where is that
charming lady who, at every step, illuminated my intelligence and lifted me
up while I was drowning in a sea of miseries?”46 Although the queen
(buddhi), a manifestation of rajas, entangles Purañjana in bondage, the
Bhāgavata still considers buddhi to be superior to the uncontrolled mind,
because at least she guides Purañjana to enjoy according to the regulations
of the śāstras.
With regard to the mind (manas), Bhāgavata-sā
khya considers it a subtle
material element, which gathers impressions of objects through the
senses.47 The buddhi reflects upon situations, makes judgments, seeks
information, and performs higher level analyses.48 But, as already noted in
our discussion of infinite regress, the manas and buddhi are neither the
conscious experiencer nor the agent. The true experiencer (bhokt
) is the
puru
a, who exists independent of the temporal body and mind: “The cause
of experiencing pleasures and pain is the puru
a, superior to prak
ti.”49 Not
only is the puru
a the experiencer, it is also the doer: “With a body
animated by life, the puru
a wanders from world to world, experiencing as
he continually (bhuñjāna) performs actions (karma
i karoti).”50
However, if the self is considered an irreducible conscious principle that is
the agent, perceiver and experiencer, one would then want to know how
such a self interacts with the physical body? How does a non-material self
interact with material elements (the old Cartesian problem)? Descartes’
(1596–1650) solution, of course, was to propose that the mind (which he
considered to be the self) interacts with the brain through the medium of the
pineal gland, which in turn activates the nerves and muscles of the body.51
This, however, still leaves out the matter of how the mind (or self) is aware
of and transmits information to the body—questions that Descartes never
effectively answered.52
Not long after Descartes proposed his solution, however, Cartesian
philosophers Nicolas Malebranche (1638–1715) and Arnold Geulincx
(1624–1669) introduced the doctrine of occasionalism, which upholds
Descartes’ basic premise that mind and matter are distinct entities, but
concludes that these two entites are incapable of interacting. Instead they
proposed that it is God himself who enables interactions between the two.
David Griffin explains:
According to this doctrine, on the occasion of my hand’s being on a hot
stove, God causes my mind to feel pain. On the occasion of my deciding to
move my hand, accordingly, God obliges, moving it for me. All apparent
interaction between mind and body is said to require this constant
supernatural intervention.53
The Bhāgavata places both the subtle body (mind, intelligence, false ego)
and the physical body (earth, water, fire, air, space) on one side of the
Cartesian divide and the puru
a (the eternal individual self) on the other,
noting that the relationship (or connection) between the conscious self and
the false ego (aha
kāra) is established by God; in this sense, it bears a
resemblance to occasionalism. In the Bhāgavata’s view, the embodied
ātmān cannot independently influence the actions of the material body.
When it desires to act in relation to the body, these desires are perceived by
God, known technically as the supreme soul (puru
a
para
),54 who then
moves prak
ti accordingly: “He [the puru
a para] is the perceiver of all the
qualities (gu
as) of nature (prak
ti) and all the actions (karma) of the living
entities (jīvas). He gives pain or pleasure to the jīvas according to their
previous karma.”55 Interaction takes place through the paramātmā (the
Lord in the heart), and prak
ti acts in the form of the body, sense organs,
and mind, composed of the three gu
as. Thus the individual conscious self
merely desires, and in this sense, does nothing. Nor does that self cause (in
the mechanical sense) anything to be done. As already noted in Chapter 2,
“Man proposes, but God disposes.”56
In his Bhāgavata commentary, Viśvanātha discusses the delicate balance
between God’s agency, nature (prak
ti), and the eternal self (jīva):
Bondage is created due to the jīvas own actions… Because action is
accomplished by the body, senses and presiding deities of the senses,
prak
ti is said to be the cause since it is the cause of the body, senses and
devatās (presiding deities)… The bestower of results of actions is the
Supreme Lord alone. Thus it is said that the jīvas’ enjoyment of results of
action is dependent on the Lord alone.57
Here Viśvanātha notes that the Bhāgavata identifies three causes of all
phenomena: (1) Īśvara, who develops prak
ti according to the results of the
jīvas’ actions; (2) prak
ti, which manifests the material elements, senses
and devatās; and (3) the jīvas, whose own desires are the cause of their
bondage and liberation: “The universe is desired by You [Kṛṣṇa] for the
sake of the jīvas and not for Yourself.”58 Īśvara is the efficient cause,
prak
ti is the material cause, and the jīva is the final cause.
Other commentators unanimously agree with Viśvanātha. The renowned
Śrīdhara Svāmī, in his own Bhāgavata commentary, writes:
All [God’s] actions are meant for the welfare of all living entities and not
for himself. Māyā executes the creation, sustenance and destruction of the
universe, and although it is non-sentient matter, it is capable of performing
these operations due to God’s presence—just as iron filings move under the
influence of a magnet. This is the example cited in order to explain the
activity of prak
ti (or māyā).59
Vīrarāghava Gosvāmin, a commentator from the Śrī Vaiṣṇava pupilary
line, agrees that both God and the eternal self possess agency:
As the body moves [according to] the dictates of the soul, so māyā, as your
[God’s] body, acts under your order. You [instill her with] your power … so
that she can create and so on … [God] gives pain or pleasure to the jīvas
according to their previous karma. So he is not to be blamed as prejudiced.
God creates the universe and provides every jīva with a body and mind.
Externally, he gives the Vedas, revealing his own nature, the nature of the
universe, and the duties of the jīvas. Then the jīvas act according to their
previous karma and perform good or bad deeds. The gods give only the
commensurate fruit of the karma performed by the living entities (jīvas).
[Thus God] is not partial.60
It is in the above sense that the conscious individual selves are considered
to be the “final cause” of creation. Creation, in other words, takes place
only for the fulfillment of the living beings’ desires and welfare. Prak
ti
itself is non-sentient matter and thus cannot be the ultimate cause of the
living beings’ activities and bondage. It is the individual selves’ desire that
brings them into association with prak
ti—an association that is permitted,
but not desired, by Kṛṣṇa (God).
The Queen and Her Ten
Bodyguards: the Intellect and the
Senses
While the Bhāgavata does not explicitly identify Purañjana’s queen as the
intellect (buddhi), its various commentators have taken the liberty of doing
so. By studying the Bhāgavata’s Sākhya system, however, one can infer
that such a gloss is not unreasonable. Recall that the narrative of the City of
Nine Gates in the Bhāgavata’s fourth book comes just after the extensive
discussion on Sākhya in book three,61 and thus serves as a practical
illustration of the rather technical and abstract ideas presented in that book.
There we learned that the Bhāgavata regards buddhi (the intellect) as the
embodied selfs principal “I-maker” as well as the first manifestation of the
false self in the quality of passion. Then, in the fourth book allegory itself,
we are told that the Queen (the symbol of passion) is the first person that
Purañjana meets, that he is attracted to her, and that she enables his
preoccupation with sensual delights, thus solidifying his false sense of self.
As such, it should come as no surprise that commentators, following along
the lines of the third book’s explanation of buddhi, have concluded that the
Queen, in terms of both the order of her appearance and her function, must
represent buddhi (the intellect).
In addition, Purañjana’s questioning of the queen during their first meeeting
is said to represent the “embodied being” asking the intellect for answers to
important existential questions: Who am I? Where have I come from? What
is the purpose of my being here? The queen responds with indifference,
claiming ignorance of the answers, and attempts to distract the king from
asking such questions at all. Thus she is said to represent the intellect
contaminated by rajas and tamas directing the embodied self toward the
temporary sensual pleasures of this world (māyā-sukha62):
O bull among men, we do not know properly who is your or my progenitor
… Nor do we know who created this city which is my abode, O warrior.
Leave aside the details about my name, family, and the rest. O destroyer of
enemies, I am glad that you have come. If you please, whatever sensual
pleasures you desire, I shall secure for you with the help of my kinsmen.
Please occupy this City of Nine Gates, enjoying for a hundred years.63
The queen is the basis and center of Purañjana’s pleasures, and in all his
activities he follows her lead, indicating that the embodied self enjoys the
body due to identification with the intellect. Īśvarakṛṣṇa writes in the
khya-kārikā:
Buddhi [intellect], manas [mind] and aha
kāra [false ego] comprehend all
types of objects. Hence these three internal instruments are like a house
with the senses as its gates. Like a lamp, the various diverse manifestations
of the three gu
as thus reveal their objects to the buddhi so that they can be
exhibited before the puru
a, which witnesses. So it is the buddhi that
enables the puru
a to experience objects.64
According to Bhāgavata-sākhya, because buddhi is a manifestation of
passion (rajas), the embodied selfs identification with buddhi results in
attraction between man and woman. The Bhāgavata considers sexual
enjoyment to be the strongest knot binding the eternal self to the transient
world of māyā because it reinforces the illusion that the body is the self.65
In the fifth chapter of the fifth book, sexual attraction is identified as the
basic principle of temporal existence—that which binds together the two
attached hearts and then expands that attachment to include children,
relatives, home, property, wealth, and so forth. In this way, the eternal self
becomes more and more entangled in the flickering world of illusion,
always thinking in terms of “I” and “mine”—a scenario that holds true for
all genders (more about this in Chapter 6).66
The point is that it is the desire to enjoy the objects and other aspects of this
world that binds us, entangles us, and keeps us perpetually trapped (and
suffering) in the cycle of birth and death. While Purañjana is superficially
portrayed as a “king” (a male) in terms of the surface tale, on a deeper level
he serves as a symbolic representation of the eternal self, which is more or
less gender neutral. According to the Bhāgavata, a self currently occupying
a female body is likely to have previously occupied the body of a man that
had been attached to a woman. Now, as a woman, that deluded self, under
the influence of māyā, generally regards men as potential mates, who help
to acquire wealth, home, children, and other material assets. Such a
“woman” is advised to recognize that all such acquirements are ephemeral
manifestations of Kṛṣṇa’s māyā. The Bhāgavata compares the allurement
of material assets to the sweet singing of the hunter, which leads the deer to
its own demise.67
Turning now to those ten bodyguards, who represent the ten senses,
Bhāgavata-sā
khya explains that when passion (rajas) is predominant not
only does the intellect (buddhi) manifest, but the five knowledge acquiring
senses (jñāna-indriya) and the five working senses (karma-indriya)
manifest as well. The knowledge acquiring senses are the senses of smell
(gandha), form (āk
ti), touch (sparśa), taste (rasa), and sound (śravā
si);
and the working senses are evacuating (visarga), sexual intercourse (rati),
movement (arti), speaking (abhijalpa), and grasping or releasing (śilpa).68
The ten physical organs corresponding to the senses (nose, tongue, skin,
eyes, ears, mouth, hands, legs, genitals, and anus) are not considered senses;
rather, they are generally thought to receive their capacities from the senses,
with each physical organ exemplifying a particular sense—i.e., the ears
exemplifying the sense of hearing, the eyes exemplifying the sense of sight,
and so forth.
Together, the ego, intellect, mind, and senses comprise what the Bhāgavata
calls the li
ga-śarīra (the subtle material body).69 This subtle body,
described as being more swift than the wind,70 carries the eternal selfs
karmic history from one lifetime to another. The senses function not only to
make us aware of external objects, but also to urge the body toward activity
—the primary characteristic of rajas. All ten senses are regarded as
“servants” of the mind, and they each have “hundreds of wives.” These
wives represent desires for material experience, and the senses act under
their pressure. Together, they attend to the intellect (the Queen), serving
“her” and bringing “her” information.
The Eleventh Bodyguard: The
Mind
According to the Bhāgavata, the mind (manas) is a product of goodness
(sattva), and thus its central function is to reveal objects to the self. The
mind is said to be the controller of the ten senses, which require its direction
in order to function. It is neither atomic nor eternal, but is rather a product
of the gu
as—and like all material phenomena, subtle and gross, it is
subject to eventual dissolution.
According to the Sākhya-kārikā, the function of the mind is sa
kalpa,
which translates as “constructive,” “reflective,” “analytic,” or
“explicative,”71 but can also mean “determination” or “strong desire.” The
Bhāgavata, in at least six different places, identifies the primary functions
of the mind as reflecting (sa
kalpa), doubting (vikalpa), and generating
desires (kāma-sambhava).72 There it is said that when the senses contact
objects, sensations are conveyed to the mind, which it then identifies and
combines to create innumerable desires—desires that are displayed before
the self. When the mind is overcome (or contaminated) by rajas (passion)
and tamas (darkness), it pushes the self toward carnal pleasures, causing the
self to pursue courses of action that have painful and/or disruptive
consequences.73 That is why in the Bhāgavata, the Gītā, and many other
Indic texts, one is urged to bring the mind under control through practice,
detachment, and realization of the detrimental effects of chasing the
flickering objects of the temporal realm.74
As already noted, the Bhāgavata portrays the individual self as a person,
full with form, senses, mind, intellect, and free will—i.e., the capacity to
accept or reject the mind’s desires. While primarily a product of goodness,
the mind most often falls under the influence of passion and darkness in one
or another of an uncountable number of combinations.
In the Bhāgavata’s eleventh book, Kṛṣṇa describes the primary
characteristics of the mind under the influence of each gu
a: the mind that
is peaceful, satisfied, and detached is said to be in sattva-gu
a
(goodness);75 the mind that is restless, filled with limitness desires, and
plagued by material longing is said to be in rajo-gu
a (passion);76 and the
mind that is overtaken by bleakness, depression, and a lack of clarity is said
to be in tamo-gu
a (darkness).77
The material mind is described as gu
a-pravaha, that which flows in the
stream of the gu
as. According to the Bhāgavata, when the mind becomes
disturbed by the fluctuations of the gu
as, the embodied self suffers due to
its identification with those mental fluctuations, even though it remains in a
changeless (avikala
pumān) and unaffected state.78 It is said that when one
places a crystal, which contains no particular color, in proximity to a red
object, the crystal appears to be red only due to proximity—its redness is an
optical illusion. Regardless of the color it reflects, the crystal remains ever
colorless, changeless, and unaffected, as does the self in relation to the
temporal realm of gu
as. Misidentification with the mind keeps the eternal
self entangled in the pains and pleasures of the temporal realm, and in this
way the eternal self is caused to suffer. The solution is said to be more or
less obvious: measures that break the cycle of misidentification, bring about
genuine detachment, and awaken the eternal self to its true spiritual identity.
Indeed, the Bhāgavata confirms in numerous places that conquering the
mind and fixing it on the Supreme represents the highest human
achievement:
Charity, prescribed duties, observance of major and minor regulative
principles, hearing from scripture, pious works and purifying vows all have
as their final aim the subduing of the mind. Indeed, concentration of the
mind on the Supreme is the highest yoga. If one’s mind is perfectly fixed
and pacified, then tell me what need does one have to perform ritualistic
charity and other pious rituals? And if one’s mind remains uncontrolled,
lost in ignorance, then of what use are these engagements for him?79
As already noted, the Bhāgavata considers the mind to be a manifestation of
goodness. As such, it can be potentially used to worship God, who is
viśuddha-sattva (pure, unalloyed goodness). Indeed the Bhāgavata contains
accounts of powerful individuals like Dhruva, who were able to withdraw
the mind from involvement with the temporal realm’s external objects and
firmly fix it on God’s form, meditating on nothing else.80
Caṇḍavega: Time
In the Purañjana allegory, the attack of Caṇḍavega (“swiftly rushing
away”) symbolizes the passage of time, with his army of 360 male and
female soldiers representing the days and nights of the year, which
relentlessly reduce the lifespan of all embodied beings. Caṇḍavega’s
daughter, Kālakanyā, is symbolic of old age, which imperceptibly creeps up
on Purañjana (the embodied being), accompanied by brothers Prajvāra
(fever) and Yavana (death), the soldiers of whom represent the diseases that
enter the gates of the city (the physical body) and plague Purañjana in
various ways.
The Serpent: The Vital Air
The allegory’s five-headed serpent represents the vital air, which has five
constituents: prā
a, apāna, vyāna, samāna, and udāna.81 These airs defend
the body from disease, and when they move in proper balance, the body
remains healthy. In the allegory, the serpent (the vital air) fights time (old
age, disease, and death) for one hundred years (the optimistic average
human lifespan). Inevitably, however, time has its way and the serpent is
seen to gradually weaken. Here it is important to note that in this symbolic
battle, the serpent (the vital air) is not destroyed, but only weakened and
dragged away, along with Purañjana (the embodied self) and his many
followers (material desires). In other words, at the time of death, the subtle
body (mind, intelligence, and false ego) is retained and the vital air carries
the self to its next bodily destination. This continues lifetime after lifetime
until the point of liberation, at which time the subtle body finally dissolves
along with the gross physical body. Nārada notes in this connection that it is
by means of the vital air that the puru
a (the eternal self) transmigrates
from one bodily state to another, experiencing happiness, sorrow, misery,
fear, and so on.82 As to the temporal physical body, once the self departs
along with the subtle body, it gradually turns to dust.
The Relation between Purāajana
and His Queen
The City of Nine Gates and its inhabitants—the queen, bodyguards,
children, grandchildren, and so forth—all contribute to the construction of
Purañjana’s self-identity. All the persons, places and objects that
Purāajana encounters (including his own body, mind, and intellect)
contribute to the formation of his false conception of “I” and “mine”—the
aha
kāra or false ego of the embodied being. Regarding the temporal
realm of subtle and physical objects that form this false conception, that
realm is said to be a product of the universal aha
kāra. This section
explores the nature of that construction in terms of Purañjana’s queen
(buddhi, the intellect).
The two oldest Upaniads, Bhadārayaka and Chāndogya, posit that the
embodied self experiences three alternate states of consciousness: waking
(jāgara
am), dreaming (svapnam), and deep sleep (su
upti).83 In the first
of these states, the senses, mind, and intellect are active, in the second, the
mind, and intellect are active,84 and in the third, the physical body is at rest
and there is a complete cessation of all mental functioning.85 With regard to
the first two of these states, waking and dreaming, it is said that waking
dissipates the “reality” of the dream experience, just as dreaming dissipates
the “reality” of the waking experience. The embodied self is said to enter
into and out of these two states like a fish that swims between two
shorelines without being touched by either.86
With regard to entering the dream state, the Bhadārayaka Upaniad notes
that each night, after encountering varieties of good and bad waking
experiences, the individual travels along the pathway of sleep into the realm
of dream, where he/she basically forgets all the experiences, relationships,
and attachments of his/her waking life.87 Then, after the self has wandered
for some time in the realm of dream, encountering varieties of good and bad
dreaming experiences, he follows the pathway from whence he came back
to the waking realm, where he has more or less forgotten most of the
experiences, relationships, and attachments of his/her dreaming life.88 Thus
the Bhadārayaka Upaniad does not appear to assign greater weight to
either one of these states of consciousness.
Drawing from the Upaniads, the Bhāgavata describes the same three states
of consciousness, but contends that all of them are manifestations of
Kṛṣṇa’s māyā, and in doing so, makes an interesting point:89 not only the
experiences of the dreaming world, but also the experiences of the waking
world are factually experienced in the mind. In other words, the embodied
self experiences not the objects themselves, but only the impressions of
those objects appearing in the mind.90
Recall that in the allegory, Purañjana vicariously experiences the world of
enjoyment through his queen, meaning that the embodied self identifies
with the intellect and thus projects itself into the temporal realm as a
participant; in this way, as previously noted, the embodied self creates a
false ego or identity, and experiences worldly pleasures and pains by means
of this artificial sense of self—suffering when the physical body and/or
subtle mind are in any way afflicted and delighting when they are in any
way pleased.
To posit that the embodied self experiences only mental impressions,
however, is not to posit that the temporal realm has no concrete existence
outside the mind. According to the Bhāgavata, the world is a real
manifestation of temporary objects, but the embodied self is only capable of
experiencing those objects as impressions upon the mind—and enjoys or
suffers due to those impressions. Dissolve the mind and the world ceases to
exist for that particular perceiver since it is only through the medium of the
mind that the embodied self perceives the world. For as long as the mind
exists, the waking and dreaming states manifest themselves within the range
of perception of the self—the knower of the field (k
etrajñā).91
Beyond its relation to the present embodiment of the self, the mind, as the
repository of karma, directs the self to its next bodily destination. In other
words, the mind is a storehouse of impressions unconsciously left by the
good and bad actions of one’s previous life, and it is these that result in the
selfs embodiment in various higher and lower forms of physical life.92 The
type of body one next receives is dependent upon the content of that
storehouse.
Recall that in the Purañjana allegory, the king (the embodied self) is finally
forced to abandon the City of Nine Gates (the physical body) accompanied
by his followers. He is then reborn as a woman because of his attachment to
a woman in his previous life. Although the motif of rebirth is not over-
emphasized in the Purañjana allegory, it is an important aspect of the
narrative in terms of demonstrating, among other things, the power of desire
and attachment in forming one’s next situation. According to the
Bhāgavata, for those that are too attached to the things of the temporal
realm, death is not necessarily synonymous with “awakening” (or being
liberated) from one’s waking dream. In the case of the attached, the change
of the physical body (sthūla-śarīra) at death merely represents the
movement of the entrapped eternal self from its current temporary identity
(or waking dream) to its next temporary identity (or waking dream). True
awakening is said to come only when the eternal self fully comprehends
that he/she has nothing whatsoever to do with the flickering persons, places
and affairs of the temporal realm, and thus devotes her/himself to Kṛṣṇa
instead.93
The Relation between Purañjana
and His Unknown Friend
(Paramātmā)
Having discussed the relation between Purañjana and his queen, we can
now move on to Purañjana’s second crucial relation—that between himself
and his unknown friend (Paramātmā or the Lord in the heart). In so doing,
we will briefly revisit the question touched upon at the beginning of this
chapter, which is certainly among the most challenging of those asked of
Bhāgavata philosophy: who or what has caused the eternal individual self to
forget his/her original changeless identity and to instead misidentify with
the temporal realm of matter? And why did this entanglement, this apparent
“fall from grace,” occur?
When Purañjana reincarnates as Queen Vaidarbhī and becomes
overwhelmed with grief on the death of “her” husband, an “unknown
friend” appoaches her in the guise of a brāhma
a and attempts to pacify the
distraught widow. As already noted, this unknown friend is Kṛṣṇa’s
Paramātmā feature, which is said to dwell in the hearts of all living beings,
accompanying them in their sojourn through multifarious births and deaths
in the temporal realm. The “brāhma
a” begins by asking Queen Vaidarbhī
whether she recognizes him as her old friend, mentioning that she has
consulted him many times in the past. He then notes that, unfortunately, she
abandoned his company to chase fleeting things and become an enjoyer of
matter, attached to carnal delights.94 Yet, while she may have abandoned
him, he has not abandoned her, but rather has been right by her side from
the very start of her temporal wanderings.
Here the Bhāgavata suggests that the embodied beings of this world
originally dwelt in the absolute realm with God, where they enjoyed an
intimate loving relationship with that supreme being, the center of their
existence. At some point, however, they willfully turned away from God in
order to pursue the self-centered pleasures of this world. As already noted
several times in this chapter, each individual self has the capacity to choose
which path to follow—where to pitch one’s tent, so to speak. It is clear that
Purañjana voluntarily chose to leave his “original home” in order to enjoy
in the transitory “garden of delights,” but the narrative provides no clear
answer as to why he made that choice, although various Bhāgavata
commentators have proffered various suggestions. The most common
suggestion put forward by commentators is that while God, the complete
whole, clearly wants his eternal emanations, the individual selves, to be
happily involved in eternal loving exchange with him, there is the important
matter of free will, without which there is no possibility of love (a voluntary
act). In other words, because we are partially independent, we can
voluntarily choose whether we wish to function in positive relation to God
or to function outside that relation, seeking fulfillment by perversely
attempting to become rather than to devote ourselves to the complete whole.
And when the former of these alternatives is chosen, what is God to do with
such a fundamentally contradictory demand. After all, under absolutely no
circumstances can the part ever become the whole. Bhaktivedānta Swami
(1896–1977), a modern-day Vaiṣṇava commentator on the Bhāgavata,
addresses the point as follows:
The living entities are illusioned by the will of the Lord because they
wanted to become like Him. Like a person who thinks of becoming a king
without possessing the necessary qualification, when the living entity
desires to become the Lord Himself, he is put in a condition of dreaming
that he is a king.
Therefore the first sinful will of the living entity is to become the Lord, and
the consequent will of the Lord is that the living entity forget his factual life
and thus dream of the land of utopia where he may become one like the
Lord.
The child cries to have the moon from the mother, and the mother gives the
child a mirror to satisfy the crying and disturbing child with the reflection
of the moon. Similarly, the crying child of the Lord is given over to the
reflection, the material world, to lord it over [as a worldly enjoyer] … [or]
to give this up in frustration to become one with the Lord [the monistic
path]. Both these stages are dreaming illusions only.95
In the Purañjana narrative, the unknown brāhma
a friend (Kṛṣṇa’s
Paramātmā feature) explains that he and Vaidarbhī/Purañjana are like two
swans that have been living together for thousands of years on the lake of
the mind, which is very far away from their original home (the absolute
realm). This metaphor harkens back to the ancient Vedic image of two
friendly birds seated on the same tree, one eating the tree’s fruits (the
individual self) and the other merely witnessing (the Lord in the heart). Of
course, among scholars in this field, it is well known that the verse
beginning with the words “dvā supar
ā” (two birds) appears in both the
Muṇḍaka (3.1.1) and the Śvetāśvatara (4.6) Upaniad. It is perhaps less
known, however, that this verse originally appeared verbatim in the first
ma
ṇḍ
ala of the gveda:
dvā supar
ā sayujā sakhāyā samāna
v
k
a
pari
asvajāte
tayor anya
pippala
svādv atty anaśnann anyobhicākaśīti
“Two birds, companions and friends, nestle on the very same tree. One of
them eats a tasty fig; the other, not eating, looks on.”96
Commentators point out that this verse describes God accompanying the
soul in all its births. In every type of body, the finite soul and the supreme
soul sit together in the heart; the former tries to enjoy the fruits of the
material body, whereas the latter simply watches and waits for his eternal
friend to remember him.
The Bhāgavata Purāa repeatedly speaks of liberation (mukti) as a
remembrance, a returning, a reawakening, a recovery, a restoration.97 Mukti,
according to the Bhāgavata, is not the “construction” of an eternal non-
material form, as some scholars have contended.98 Rather, it is awakening
to that original form—that genuine eternal identity, which has no need of
construction since it has neither beginning nor end. When the dreamer
awakens and the “false” dream body disappears, there is no need for the
construction of a waking-life body. The awake dreamer automatically finds
himself lying in bed in his “original” waking-life body.
When Vaidarbhī regains her original position at the end of the allegory, the
exact words used are na
ṣṭ
ām āpa puna
sm
tim, “that swan regained his
lost memory.”99 This is understood to be a type of “awakening,” granted by
the unknown friend—an awakening that brings the dream of waking life to
an end. And again, the Bhāgavata’s use of terms such as remembering,
regaining, returning, and reawakening to describe coming out of bondage
presupposes an original state of being that had previously been ours, that
was then somehow lost, and that can be ours once more. In the next chapter
we will explore that original state of being as well as māyā’s internal role as
the śakti (energy) that enables Kṛṣṇa (God) to participate in eternal
pastimes of intimate loving exchange with his devotees.
Māyā in the Bhāgavata Purāņa: Human Suffering and Divine Play. Gopal
K. Gupta, Oxford University Press (2020).
© Gopal K. Gupta. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198856993.001.0001
1 Kuang-Ming Wu, The Butterfly as Companion: Meditations on the First
Three Chapters of the Chuang Tzu, (New York: SUNY, 1990).
2 Plato, Theaetetus, 157c. In O’Flaherty, Dreams, Illusion, and Other
Realities, 39.
3 Plato, Theaetetus, 158e. In Dreams, Illusion, and Other Realities.
4 Plato, Republic, 476c d. In ibid.
5 Roger Caillois, “Logical and Philosophical Problems of the Dream,” in
The Dream and Human Societies, ed. Gustave E. von Grunebaum and
Roger Caillois (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966), 33.
6 Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, “The Dream Narrative and the Indian
Doctrine of Illusion,” Daedalus (Proceedings of the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences), vol. 111, no. 3, 1982, 94.
7 Berger, The Veil of Māyā, 80.
8 William Shakespeare, The Tempest (independently published, 2018).
9 BhP 2.9.1–3 trans. based upon Tagare:
ātma-māyām
te rājan parasyānubhavātmana
na gha
etārtha-sambandha
svapna-dra
ṣṭ
ur ivāñjasā ||1||
bahu-rūpa ivābhāti-māyayā bahu-rūpayā
ramamā
o gu
e
v asyā mamāham iti manyate ||2||
yarhi vāva mahimni sve parasmin kāla-māyayo
rameta gata-sammohas tyaktvodāste tadobhayam ||3||
10 BhP 11.17.53.
11 BhP 10.84.24–5.
12 BhP 7.14.3–4:
ś
ṛṇ
van bhagavatobhīk
ṣṇ
am avatāra-kathām
ta
śraddadhāno yathā kālam upaśānta-janāv
ta
||3||
sat-sa
gāc chanakai
sa
gam ātma-jāyātmajādi
u
vimuñcen mucyamāne
u svaya
svapnavad utthita
||4||
13 BhP 10.21.7–19.
14 The allegory of the City of Nine Gates appears in the Bhāgavata Purā
a,
book four, chapter 25–9.
15 Kapila’s Sākhya is described in the Bhāgavata Purā
a book three,
chapters 25–32.
16 Bhagavad-gītā 5.13:
sarva-karmā
i manasā sannyasyāste sukha
vaśī
nava-dvāre pure dehī naiva kurvan na kārayan ||13||
17
khya-kārikā, verse 35.
18 BhP 4.25.14:
prākāropavanā
ṭṭ
āla-parikhair ak
a-tora
ai
svar
a-raupyāyasai
ś
ṛṅ
gai
sa
kulā
sarvato g
hai
||14||
19 BhP 4.25.18:
hima-nirjhara-vipru
mat-kusumākara-vāyunā
calat-pravāla-vi
apa-nalinī-ta
a-sampadi ||18||
20 BhP 4.25.20:
yad
cchayāgatā
tatra dadarśa pramadottamām
bh
tyair daśabhir āyāntīm ekaika-śata-nāyakai
||20||
21 BhP 4.25.57, 60:
aśnantyā
kvacid aśnāti jak
atyā
saha jak
iti ||57||
kvacic ch
ṛṇ
oti ś
ṛṇ
vantyā
paśyantyām anu paśyati
kvacij jighrati jighrantyā
sp
śantyā
sp
śati kvacit ||60||
22 BhP 4.25.62:
necchann anukaroty ajña
klaibyāt krī
ā-m
go yathā ||62||
23 BhP 4.26.5:
āsurī
v
ttim āśritya ghorātmā niranugraha
nyahanan niśitair bā
air vane
u vana-gocarān ||5||
24 BhP 4.26.9:
tatra nirbhinna-gātrā
ā
citra-vājai
śilīmukhai
viplavobhūd du
khitānā
du
saha
karu
ātmanām ||9||
25 BhP 4.26.14–16 trans. based upon Tagare::
anta
pura-striyop
cchad vimanā iva vedi
at
api va
kuśala
rāmā
seśvarī
ā
yathā purā ||14||
na tathaitarhi rocante g
he
u g
ha-sampada
yadi na syād g
he mātā patnī vā pati-devatā
vya
ge ratha iva prājña
ko nāmāsīta dīnavat ||15||
kva vartate sā lalanā majjanta
vyasanār
ave
yā mām uddharate prajñā
dīpayantī pade pade ||16||
26 BhP 4.26.17 trans. based upon Tagare::
rāmā ūcu
nara nātha na jānīmas tvat priyā yad vyavasyati
bhūtale niravastāre śayānā
paśya śatru-han ||17||
27 BhP 4.26.25–6 trans. based upon Tagare::
tan me prasīda suh
da
k
ta-kilbi
asya
svaira
gatasya m
gayā
vyasanāturasya
kā devara
vaśa-gata
kusumāstra-vega- visrasta-pau
snam uśatī na
bhajeta k
tye ||26||
28 BhP 4.27.5 trans. based upon Tagare:
k
a
ārdham iva rājendra vyatikrānta
nava
vaya
||5||
29 BhP 4.28.52–5, trans. based upon Tagare:
kā tva
kasyāsi ko vāya
śayāno yasya śocasi
jānāsi ki
sakhāya
yenāgre vicacartha ha ||52||
api smarasi cātmānam avijñāta-sakha
sakhe
hitvā mā
padam anvicchan bhauma-bhoga-rato gata
||53||
ha
sāv aha
ca tva
cārya sakhāyau mānasāyanau
abhūtām antarā vauka
sahasra-parivatsarān ||54||
sa tva
vihāya mā
bandho gato grāmya-matir mahīm
vicaran padam adrāk
ī
kayācin nirmita
striyā ||55||
30 BhP 4.28.64, trans. based upon Tagare:
eva
sa mānaso ha
so ha
sena pratibodhita
sva-sthas tad-vyabhicāre
a na
ṣṭ
ām āpa puna
sm
tim ||64||
31 Bryant, Krishna, the Beautiful Legend of God, xlii.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 BhP 2.6.44.
35 BhP 2.9.10, trans. based upon Tagare:
pravartate yatra rajas tamas tayo
sattva
ca miśra
na ca kāla-
vikrama
na yatra māyā kim utāpare harer anuvratā yatra surāsurārcitā
||10||
36 BhP 10.9.20:
nema
viriñco na bhavo na śrīr apy a
ga-sa
śrayā
prasāda
lebhire gopī yat tat prāpa vimuktidāt ||20||
37 Also BhP 1.2.25, 1.3.3, 3.15.15, 4.3.23, 4.23.11, 4.30.24, 4.30.41, 5.7.7,
5.20.40, 5.25.10, 6.5.28, 6.14.2, 10.2.34, 10.85.42, 11.15.28.
38 BhP 10.27.4, trans. Bryant:
viśuddha-sattva
tava dhāma śānta
tapo māyā
dhvasta-rajas-
tamaskam
māyā-mayoya
gu
a-sampravāho na vidyate tegraha
ānubandha
||4||
39 BhP 8.5.31, trans. based upon Tagare:
ime vaya
yat priyayaiva tanvā sattvena s
ṛṣṭ
ā bahir-antar-āvi
gati
na sūk
mām
ṛṣ
ayaś ca vidmahe kutosurādyā itara-pradhānā
||31||
40 BhP 10.1.28.
41 BhP 11.31.24.
42 BhP 10.70.5, trans. Bryant:
eka
svaya
jyotir ananyam avyaya
sva-sa
sthayā nitya-nirasta-
kalma
am
brahmākhyam asyodbhava-nāśa-hetubhi
sva-śaktibhir lak
ita-bhāva-
nirv
tim ||5||
43 BhP 4.25.57, 58, 60, trans. based upon Tagare:
kvacit pibantyā
pibati madirā
mada-vihvala
aśnantyā
kvacid aśnāti jak
atyā
saha jak
iti ||57||
kvacid gāyati gāyantyā
rudatyā
rudati kvacit
kvacid dhasantyā
hasati jalpantyām anu jalpati ||58||
kvacic ch
ṛṇ
oti ś
ṛṇ
vantyā
paśyantyām anu paśyati
kvacij jighrati jighrantyā
sp
śantyā
sp
śati kvacit ||60||
44 This analogy is from Ka
ha Upani
ad (1.3.3–4):
ātmāna
rathina
viddhi śarīra
ratham eva ca
buddhi
tu sārathi
viddhi mana
pragraham eva ca ||3||
indriyā
i hayān āhur vi
ayā
s te
u gocarān
ātmendriya-mano-yukta
bhoktety āhur manī
i
a
||4||
45 Larson, Classical Sā
khya, 169.
khya-kārikā, verse 19.
46 BhP 4.26.14–16, trans. based upon Tagare.
47 BhP 5.11.5.
48
khya-kārikā, verses 35–6.
49 BhP 3.26.8, trans. based upon Tagare:
kārya-kāra
a-kart
tve kāra
a
prak
ti
vidu
bhokt
tve sukha-du
khānā
puru
a
prak
te
param ||8||
50 BhP 3.31.43, trans. based upon Tagare:
dehena jīva-bhūtena lokāl lokam anuvrajan
bhuñjāna eva karmā
i karoty avirata
pumān ||43||
51 Daniel Clement Dennett and Paul Weiner, Consciousness Explained
(Boston; London: Little Brown, 1991), 34.
52 Despite the common misperception, it is important to note that Descartes
did not think that the pineal gland in the brain was an organ sensitive to
both mind and matter and could therefore mediate between them.
Philosophers have now shown that Descartes simply suggested that the
pineal gland was the place where an interaction between mind and matter
took place. As to how the interaction took place, Descartes could not say.
(David Ray Griffin, Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality: A
Postmodern Exploration, Suny Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), 105.)
53 Griffin, Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality, 105.
54 Bhagavad-gītā 18.22, trans. Winthrop Sargeant and Christopher Chapple,
The Bhagavad Gītā, Rev. ed., Suny Series in Cultural Perspectives (Albany:
State University of New York Press, 1984), 18.22:
upadra
ṣṭ
ānumantā ca bhartā bhoktā maheśvara
paramātmeti cāpy ukto dehesmin puru
a
para
||22||
“The highest Spirit in this body is called the witness, the consenter, the
supporter, the enjoyer, the great Lord, and also the supreme Spirit
[Supersoul].”
55 Vīrarāghava Gosvāmin’s comments on BhP 5.18.38. In Danavir
Goswami, Commentaries on 5th Canto Bhagavatam Cosmology by
Vaisnava Acaryas (Kansas City: Rupanuga Vedic College, 2007).
56 Kempis, Imitation of Christ, Book 1, Chapter 19.
57 Viśvanātha’s comments on BhP 3.26.8. In Viśvanātha Cakravartī
hākura, Sārārtha Darśinī, Tenth Canto Commentaries Śrīmad
Bhāgavatam, trans. Bhanu Swami (Vrindavan, India: Mahanidhi Swami,
2004).
jīvasya karmabhir eva bandhas te
ā
karma
ā
ca sādhane phala-
bhoge ca krame
a prak
ti-puru
āv eva kāra
e ity āha—kāryeti |
bhūtendriya-devatādibhir eva karma-siddhes te
ā
bhūtendriya-
devatānā
ca kārya-kāra
a-kart
tve prak
tim eva kāra
a
vidu
|
prak
tyaiva te
ā
tad-bhāvasya s
ṛṣṭ
atvāj jīvasya karma-kāra
a
māyādhīnam ity artha
| karma-phala-dātā ca parameśvara eveti jīvasya
karma-phala-bhokt
tvam īśvarādhīnam evety āha—bhokt
tva
jīvasya
karma-phalānā
bhoge puru
a
kāra
a
vidur ity anvaya
||8||
58 Viśvanātha’s comments on BhP 5.18.38. In Fifth Canto Commentaries
Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, ed. Danavir Goswami (Vrindavan, India: Rasa-
biharilal and Sons, 2004).
nanu mat-kāryatvād acid api jagan mamaivākāro m
d-gha
ādivat tatra
jagad ida
na vastutas tvat-kārya
, kintu māyā-kāryam ity āha—karotīti |
yasyek
itur jīvārtham īpsita
atyantānicchāyā
īk
a
a-yogāt | svārtha
tu nepsita
, viśva-sthityādi sva-gu
air māyayaiva karoti | tasyā
ga
atvepi īśvara-sannidhānāt prav
tti
d
ṛṣṭ
āntenāha—yathā loha
grāvnoyaskāntād dhetor bhramati tad-āśraya
tad-abhimukha
sat, ato
gu
ānā
karma
ā
jīvād
ṛṣṭ
ānā
ca sāk
i
e tasmai tubhya
nama
||38||
59 Śrīdhara Svāmin’s comments on BhP 5.18.38. In Goswami, Fifth Canto
Commentaries:
tad eva
nirgu
a-rūpe
a natvā parameśvara-rūpe
a pra
amati, karotīti |
yasyek
itur jīvārtham īpsitam | atyantānicchāyām īk
a
āyogāt | svārtha
tu nepsitam | viśva-sthity-ādi-sva-gu
air māyā karoti | tasyā
ja
atvepīśvara-sannidhānāt prav
tti
d
ṛṣṭ
āntenāha—yathāyo loha
grāv
oyaskāntān nimittād bhramati | tad-āśraya
tad-abhimukha
sat |
ato gu
ānā
karma
ā
jīvād
ṛṣṭ
ānā
ca sāk
i
e tasmai te nama
||38||
60 Vīrarāghava Gosvāmin’s comments on BhP 5.18.38. In ibid.
61 Kapila’s Sākhya is described in the Bhāgavata Purā
a book three,
chapters 25–32.
62 BhP 7.9.43.
63 BhP 4.25.33, 34, 36, 37, trans. based upon Tagare:
na vidāma vaya
samyak kartāra
puru
ar
abha
ātmanaś ca parasyāpi gotra
nāma ca yat-k
tam ||33||
ihādya santam ātmāna
vidāma na tata
param
yeneya
nirmitā vīra purī śara
am ātmana
||34||
di
ṣṭ
yāgatosi bhadra
te grāmyān kāmān abhīpsase
udvahi
yāmi tā
s teha
sva-bandhubhir arindama ||36||
imā
tvam adhiti
ṣṭ
hasva purī
nava-mukhī
vibho
mayopanītān g
h
āna
kāma-bhogān śata
samā
||37||
64
khya-kārikā, verses 35–6. Trans. Larson, Classical Sā
khya.
65 The Bhāgavata refers to lust (kāma) as the knot in the heart (h
daya-
granthi): 3.24.4, 5.5.8, 5.25.8, 11.3.47.
66 BhP 5.5.
67 BhP 3.31.40–2:
yopayāti śanair māyā yo
id deva-vinirmitā ||40||
manyate pati
mohān man-māyām
ṛṣ
abhāyatīm
strītva
strī-sa
gata
prāpto vittāpatya-g
ha-pradam ||41||
tām ātmano vijānīyāt paty-apatya-g
hātmakam
daivopasādita
m
tyu
m
gayor gāyana
yathā ||42||
68 BhP 5.11.10:
gandhāk
ti-sparśa-rasa-śravā
si visarga-raty-arty-abhijalpa-śilpā
ekādaśa
svīkara
a
mameti śayyām aha
dvādaśam eka āhu
||10||
69 BhP 4.29.35, 5.11.5.
70 Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, “Karma and Rebirth in the Vedas and
Purāas,” in Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, ed. Wendy
Doniger O’Flaherty (India: Motilal Banarsidass, 1999), 16.
71 Larson, Classical Sā
khya, 186.
72 BhP 2.10.30, 3.26.27, 11.2.38, 11.11.14, 11.13.9–11, 11.15.26, 12.6.30–1.
73 BhP 11.13.9:
aham ity anyathā-buddhi
pramattasya yathā h
di
utsarpati rajo ghora
tato vaikārika
mana
||9||
BhP 11.13.10:
rajo-yuktasya manasa
sa
kalpa
sa vikalpaka
tata
kāmo gu
a-dhyānād du
saha
syād dhi durmate
||10||
BhP 11.13.11:
karoti kāma-vaśa-ga
karmā
y avijitendriya
du
khodarkā
i sampaśyan rajo-vega-vimohita
||11||
74 BhP 11.13.12:
rajas-tamobhyā
yad api vidvān-vik
ipta-dhī
puna
atandrito mano yuñjan do
a-d
ṛṣṭ
ir na sajjate ||12||
75 BhP 11.25.16:
yadā citta
prasīdeta indriyā
ā
ca nirv
ti
dehebhaya
mano-sa
ga
tat sattva
viddhi mat padam ||16||
76 BhP 11.25.17:
vikurvan kriyayā cādhīr aniv
ttiś ca cetasām
gātrāsvāsthya
mano bhrānta
raja etair niśāmaya ||17||
77 BhP 11.25.18:
sīdac citta
vilīyeta cetaso graha
ek
amam
mano na
ṣṭ
a
tamo glānis tamas tad upadhāraya ||18||
78 BhP 7.2.24:
eva
gu
air bhrāmyamā
e manasy avikala
pumān
yāti tat-sāmyatā
bhadre hy ali
go li
gavān iva ||24||
79 BhP 11.23.45–6 trans Goswami, H.:
anīha ātmā manasā samīhatā hira
-mayo mat-sakha udvica
ṣṭ
e
mana
sva-li
ga
parig
hya kāmān ju
an nibaddho gu
a-sa
gatosau
||45||
dāna
sva-dharmo niyamo yamaś ca śruta
ca karmā
i ca sad-vratāni
sarve mano-nigraha lak
a
āntā
paro hi yogo manasa
samādhi
||46||
80 BhP 4.8.77:
sarvato mana āk
ṛṣ
ya h
di bhūtendriyāśayam
dhyāyan bhagavato rūpa
nādrāk
īt kiñcanāparam ||77||
81 Eliade and Trask, Yoga: Immortality and Freedom, 384n.
82 BhP 4.29.74–5:
anena puru
o dehān upādatte vimuñcati
har
a
śoka
bhaya
du
kha
sukha
cānena vindati ||75||
83 Deussen, The Philosophy of the Upanishads, 298.
84 Ibid., 299.
85 Ibid., 300.
86 B
hadāra
yaka Upani
ad, 4.3.18.
87 B
hadāra
yaka, 4.3.15.
88 B
hadāra
yaka, 4.3.16.
89 BhP 4.6.53–4.
90 BhP 5.11.12:
k
etrajña etā manaso vibhūtīr jīvasya māyā-racitasya nityā
āvirhitā
kvāpi tirohitāś ca śuddho vica
ṣṭ
e hy aviśuddha-kartu
||12||
91 BhP 5.11.7:
tāvān aya
vyavahāra
sadāvi
k
etrajña-sāk
yo bhavati sthūla-
sūk
ma
tasmān mano li
gam ado vadanti gu
āgu
atvasya parāvarasya ||7||
92 BhP 5.11.5.
93 BhP 4.29.35.
94 BhP 4.28.53.
95 Bhaktivedānta Swami, Srimad Bhagavatam, 2.9.1, Purport (Los Angeles:
BBT, 1988).
96
gveda 1.164.20. Translation by Olivelle, The Early Upani
ads.
97 BhP 4.28.64, 7.14.3–4.
98 Barbara A. Holdrege, “Body,” in Studying Hinduism: Key Concepts and
Methods, ed. Sushil Mittal and Gene R. Thursby (London: Routledge,
2008), 34.
99 BhP 4.28.64.
5
Māyā’s Role in the Absolute Realm
The Architect of Kṛṣṇa’s Delights
As has been well-discussed in the first four chapters of this book, the
Bhāgavata Purāna covers knowledge about the following general topics: (1)
the nature of God (Kṛṣṇa); (2) the nature of the puru
as (jīvātman)—the
individual selves that are Kṛṣṇa’s eternal infinitesimal emanations (like
particles of rays emanating from the sun); and (3) the nature of both the
temporal and the absolute realms in which the various categories of living
beings reside.
In the Bhāgavata, of course, each of the above three topics opens up to a
variety of other topics, the most important of which concerns the
relationship between Kṛṣṇa and the individual selves, which commentators
such as Jiva Goswamin have analyzed in terms of both type and
development as follows: (1) sambandha, the nature of that relationship; (2)
abhidheya, the activity pertaining to that relationship; and (3) prayojana,
the fruit or object of that relational activity.1
In Chapter 3 we discussed māyā’s involvement in the production of the
temporal realm, which is said to exist for those that desire to live in
forgetfulness of God. And in Chapter 4 we discussed māyā’s role as the
deluding power that covers the memory of such souls and causes them to
identify as products of matter, living in the temporal realm.
In this chapter we will explore the other side of the coin—i.e., the absolute
realm that is said to be a transformation of yoga-māyā, Kṛṣṇa’s own yogic
energy, meaning the realm in which Kṛṣṇa personally resides along with
his loving associates: those souls that want to live in full knowledge and
remembrance of Kṛṣṇa (sambandha), that have chosen loving devotional
service (bhakti) as the means (abhidheya), and that have found complete
fulfillment and unlimited joy in unconditionally dedicating themselves to
Kṛṣṇa’s happiness (prayojana). However, before journeying into that
divine realm, we must first develop a more nuanced understanding of the
term bhakti.
In Viraha Bhakti, Friedhelm Hardy posits that the Bhāgavata presents two
distinct forms of bhakti: “normative bhakti” (“quiet contemplation”) and
“emotional bhakti” (an intense form of bhakti, directed toward Kṛṣṇa).2 In
Hardy’s view, while the normative form is found in the Bhagavad-gītā, the
Bhāgavata’s emotional form is not found in that work. While this
understanding of the Gītā’s presentation of bhakti seems largely correct,
there are nonetheless a small number of Gītā verses that hint at something
more than mere “quiet contemplation.”
Within the Bhakti traditions, there is the common understanding that
because God is absolute, he is present in descriptions of his names, forms,
qualities, activities, and words. Thus it is said that when sincere bhakti
practitioners gather together to recite, discuss, and exchange ideas, Kṛṣṇa
becomes directly manifest, quickening feelings of ecstatic love
accompanied by shivering of the body, flows of tears from the eyes, and
other such symptoms. In the Gītā’s tenth chapter, Kṛṣṇa appears to describe
such bhaktas, declaring that their thoughts dwell in him, their lives are
completely dedicated to him, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss
(tu
yanti ca ramanti) by always speaking of him and exchanging
realizations.3 Apart from this, in the eleventh chapter, after seeing Kṛṣṇa’s
universal form, Arjuna speaks of the intimacy and casualness of his own
friendship with Kṛṣṇa, and he does so in terms that sound much like
descriptions of the more intimate and spontaneous forms of bhakti found in
the Bhāgavata.4 Regardless of what one may think of Hardy’s
normative/emotional division, which certainly has its discursive merits, a
brief exploration of what the Bhāgavata itself has to say about levels and
types of bhakti will likely garner tremendous reward.
For the purposes of this discussion, we here define bhakti, in the simplest of
terms, as “devotion.” In this regard, from its very start, the Bhāgavata draws
a distinction between alloyed and unalloyed bhakti. On the alloyed side
stand forms of devotion to Kṛṣṇa (God) that are practiced with a selfish
motive in mind. These can be viewed as bhakti mixed with one or more of a
multitude of self-centered aims—i.e., devotion that is tinged with the desire
for profit, adoration, distinction, material gain, knowledge, power, the
avoidance of suffering, and even liberation from material bondage and
illusion. All these bhakti admixtures fall short of the Bhāgavata’s lofty
standards because they are tinged—regardless of how slightly—with
impure motivations and desires.5 In contrast, unalloyed forms of devotion
to Kṛṣṇa are unmixed, unadulterated, and pure—i.e., bhakti that is entirely
devoid of selfish motivation and that cannot be disturbed by any
impediment.6 In such a pure devotional state, the only motive that remains
is the desire to please Kṛṣṇa.
In the Bhāgavata’s third book, Kapiladeva divides these mixed forms of
bhakti into three categories based upon the gu
as: devotion in darkness,
which is expressed by those whose bhakti remains tainted by lower qualities
such as envy, pride, anger, violence, etc; devotion in passion, which is
expressed by those whose bhakti is tainted by the desire for material
enjoyment, fame, power, opulence, etc; and devotion in goodness, which is
expressed by those whose bhakti is tainted by the desire for higher
knowledge and liberation from material bondage and suffering.7 In all these
cases, the so-called bhakta wants something in return for services rendered.
But what of those that are purely devoted to Kṛṣṇa? Kapiladeva
distinguishes them by pointing out their spontaneous attraction for hearing
and speaking about the qualities, activities, and characteristics of the Lord,
who is said to reside in the hearts of all. Kapiladeva notes that just as the
Ganges river flows inexorably to the sea, so does the attraction of the purely
devoted flow inexorably toward Kṛṣṇa; no worldly condition or attraction
can impede its spontaneous course.8 He also notes that the purely devoted
reject not only all types of material benefit, but all types of liberation as
well.9 In other words, according to the Bhāgavata, those that have achieved
the level of unalloyed bhakti ask nothing of Kṛṣṇa save the continued
opportunity to be engaged in his loving service. They do not desire relief
from the cycle of birth and death, nor do they fear any condition of life. For
them, heaven, hell, and liberation are exactly the same.10
To summarize, in the Bhāgavata we find alloyed types of bhakti that are
motivated by multi-desires for material reward, and we also find unalloyed
types of bhakti that are motivated only by the desire to please Kṛṣṇa. The
aim of this chapter is to explore unalloyed forms of bhakti: spontaneous
attraction to Kṛṣṇa’s service, leading ultimately to the perfection of prema,
pure love of God. Before doing so, however, there is one more nuance in
the Bhāgavata’s bhakti taxonomy that needs to be discussed. It concerns the
nature of unalloyed bhakti itself, which is differently displayed by two types
of unalloyed devotees: (1) those that are fully aware of Kṛṣṇa as God, and
who thus exhibit awe and veneration for his greatness, always remembering
their position of subordination to the Lord; and (2) those that are drawn to
the qualities, charm, and beauty of Kṛṣṇa as K
ṛṣṇ
a, and who thus become
involved with him in a form of intimate spontaneous loving exchange that
is completely free and open—unhindered (per yoga-māyā’s arrangement)
by cognizance of Kṛṣṇa’s status as the supreme being, the origin of all, and
so forth.
Although the Bhāgavata does not appear to provide concise definitions of
these two flavors of unalloyed devotion, both are vividly on display
throughout the work. The first, awe and veneration, which is said to be
found in both the temporal and the absolute (Vaikuṇṭha) realm, is
exemplified in the discourses, tales, and prayers of such Vaiṣṇava notables
as Kuntī (first book), Brahmā (second book), Devahutī (third book), Dhruva
(fourth book), Citraketu/Vtrāsura (sixth book), Prahlāda (seventh book),
Bali (eighth book) and Ambarīa (ninth book), as well as in descriptions of
Vaikuṇṭha found in the Bhāgavatas third book.
The second, intimate spontaneous loving exchange, is found within Goloka
Vndāvana, the highest planet of the absolute realm, where Kṛṣṇa is said to
personally enjoy in Vraja with his confidential servants, friends, parents,
and conjugal lovers. The Bhāgavata dedicates a good portion of its tenth
book (the largest book of all) to descriptions of this realm—or, more
precisely, its non-different facsimile here on earth. Within the pages of this
tenth book we encounter tales of the residents of Vndāvana, who are
involved in intimate loving relations with Kṛṣṇa—devotees such as Nanda,
Yaśodā, Śubala, Sudama, the gopīs (cowherd maidens), and so on.
In this way, the Bhāgavata’s tenth book introduces the reader to the highest
form of bhakti wherein Kṛṣṇa’s yoga-māyā intentionally causes these
unique souls to forget that he is God so that they may nurture, protect, and
even punish “naughty” Kṛṣṇa as his parent; laugh, play, joke, and even
defeat Kṛṣṇa in mock fighting as his friend; or caress, embrace, and even
reproach Kṛṣṇa in dealings of amorous love as his paramour. The text
makes clear that this form of intimate spontaneous loving exchange is the
highest attainment available to any living being, achieved by only the most
exalted devotees of Kṛṣṇa.
Now that we have developed a more nuanced taxonomy of bhakti, let us
explore some of these tenth book descriptions of Kṛṣṇa’s dealings in
Vndāvana, where Māyā—in her role as Yogā-māyātransforms into
Kṛṣṇa’s realm and serves as the architect of Kṛṣṇa’s delights.
Kṛṣṇa and His Mother, Yaśodā
The first forty chapters of the Bhāgavata’s tenth book contain numerous
accounts of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā in earthly Vndāvana (the earthly counterpart of
Goloka Vndāvana), where he eternally resides along with the vraja-vāsīs
(his most intimate devotees). Although it is far beyond the scope of this
work to examine all these accounts, in what follows we at least discuss
several of the more prominent narratives. We can begin with an analysis of
the renowned incident in which Kṛṣṇa affords his mother a glimpse of his
universal form—a narrative that is worth recounting in full since it
incorporates many of the themes we discuss in this book: dreams, illusions,
forgetfulness, and the temporal realm. The following is a paraphrasing of
this tale:
Once, when Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma were playing with their friends, all the
boys joined Balarāma to complain to Kṛṣṇa’s mother, Yaśodā, that Kṛṣṇa
had eaten clay. With great concern for her son’s welfare, Yaśodā catches
hold of Kṛṣṇa’s hand, and lifting him into her lap, sternly inquires as to
why the naughty boy had secretly eaten clay: “Do you deny the claim that
has been made against you by all your playmates, including your elder
brother”?
Fearful of Yaśodā’s displeasure, Kṛṣṇa insists that the accusations of his
brother and friends are completely false; he has certainly not eaten clay, and
if his mother disbelieves him, he suggests that she herself look into his
mouth. At this, Yaśodā challenges Kṛṣṇa—whose supremacy cannot be
constrained, who is God himself in the form of a human boy—to open his
mouth.
When so ordered by his mother, Kṛṣṇa dutifully opens his mouth, and
although he does not wish to disturb Yaśodā’s parental affection, the child’s
opulences become automatically manifest as his mother peers inside. There,
within that tiny aperture, Yaśodā beholds all moving and nonmoving
entities, outer space, and all directions, along with mountains, islands,
oceans, the surface of the earth, the planetary systems, the moon, the stars,
the wind, fire, air, sky and creation, along with senses, mind, perception,
and the three qualities goodness, passion and darkness. But this is not the
end. She further beholds the time allotted to the living entities, desire, the
reactions of karma, and on and on. Finally, in the midst of it all, she sees
herself and Vndāvana-dhāma within that mystical mouth, and thus
becomes bewildered as to the position of her son.
Struck with wonder, Yaśodā begins to question whether she is witnessing a
dream, an illusory creation of māyā, the confusion of her own intelligence
—or, in fact, some inherent divine power of her dearmost son. In a mood of
deep veneration, she begins to offer homage to Him who is beyond the
conception of human speculation, the mind, activities, words and
arguments, and who is the original cause and maintainer of the cosmos. By
Kṛṣṇa’s grace, Mother Yaśodā could understand that she is his eternal
subordinate, that he is her ultimate shelter, and that it is only due to māyā’s
influence that she considers Nanda Mahārāja her husband, Kṛṣṇa her son,
the cows and calves her possessions, and all the cowherd men and ladies
her subjects.
Understanding his mothers absorption in high philosophical contemplation,
the omnipotent supreme master, by the influence of yoga-māyā, inspires her
to once again become immersed in intense maternal affection for him.
Immediately, all such contemplations fly from Yaśodā’s memory. With a
heart overflowing with intense love, she takes Kṛṣṇa on her lap as before,
returning to her previous state of mind. In this way, she considers Hari,
whose glories are sung by the three Vedas, the Upaniads, Sān˙khya yoga,
and the Sātvata sages, to be her very own son.11
When Kṛṣṇa’s mother peers into her son’s mouth to see if he has eaten
clay, she is confronted with Kṛṣṇa’s astounding universal form, which
encompasses all subtle and gross aspects of the cosmos (see Figure 5.1).
However, what astounds her most amidst all this wonder is seeing herself
sitting with her son in Vraja, for this calls into question her common sense
understanding of reality. Thus she begins to consider that her life as a
mother, wife, and queen may be nothing more than an illusion, and also
comes to question her son’s true identity and nature. Kṛṣṇa, however,
covers Yaśodā’s consciousness, memory, and perceptions with his yoga-
māyā immediately after this vision, so she can again view him as her little
child in maternal love.
image
Figure 5.1 When Kṛṣṇa’s mother Yaśodā peers into her son’s mouth to see
if he has eaten clay, she sees Kṛṣṇa’s astounding universal form and amidst
all this wonder she sees herself sitting with her son in Vraja.
Here one might argue that Yaśodā finally encounters “real reality” for the
few moments that she beholds the universal form in her son’s mouth, and
then lives the remainder of her life in the illusion that she is Kṛṣṇa’s
mother. The Bhāgavata, however, upholds the opposite view, meaning that
it upholds Yaśodā’s māyā-influenced perception that Kṛṣṇa is her son as
the pinnacle of reality, since it allows for the exchange of spontaneous love
between Kṛṣṇa and his devotee. Indeed, as already noted above, bhakti in
awe and veneration, which focuses on God’s majesty, is considered inferior
because it obstructs the uninhibited flow of this most intimate form of love.
And since Yaśodā is Kṛṣṇa’s mother eternally, her relationship with Kṛṣṇa
is not merely her private reality; it is rather ultimate reality (yoga-māyā’s
involvement notwithstanding). Indeed, far from describing Yaśodā’s
motherhood as being based on an illusion, the Bhāgavata repeatedly accords
her a status that is above even the gods and yogīs: “Neither Brahmā, nor
Śiva, nor even Śrī, the Goddess of Fortune … obtained the benediction
which the Gopī [Yaśodā] obtained from Kṛṣṇa, the giver of liberation.”12
The reason, of course, concerns the status of Yaśodā’s intimate spontaneous
love for Kṛṣṇa, who the Bhāgavata regards as God in his original form.13
In majestic forms such as Viṣṇu, Kṛṣṇa displays his opulence (aiśvarya)
and creates all the worlds; but in his original form, Kṛṣṇa displays the
charm, beauty, and sweetness (mādhurya) that represents the most complete
and intimate feature of God.
There is, however, one curious aspect of this narrative that requires
explanation. By the arrangement of Kṛṣṇa’s yoga-māyā, and with the aim
of intimate loving exchange, Yaśodā accepts Kṛṣṇa as her little son. Then,
again by yoga-māyā’s arrangment, she obtains a glimpse of Kṛṣṇa’s
universal form, which completely overturns that view, and awakens
realizations that challenge her conception of reality. At the end, however,
this overturning is undone by yoga-māyā, who removes all vestiges of the
incident from Yaśodā’s memory and returns her to her former state of
consciousness as child Kṛṣṇa’s mother. Apparently, then, Yaśodā herself
gained nothing from the experience. What, then, was the point?
It is here, in the answer to this question, that we encounter the soteriological
aim not only of this līlā, but of the Bhāgavata itself. Yaśodā’s momentary
experience of the universal form was never intended to permanently alter
her motherly perspective, conceived by the Bhāgavata to be the most
exalted conception of reality one can achieve. Rather, the līlā is intended to
challenge, and hopefully alter, the perspective of the potential reader.
Indeed, from the very beginning of the Bhāgavata and throughout its twelve
books, Vyāsa makes clear again and again that it is through descriptions of
God’s name, form, qualities and activities that the bound of this world can
become purified, enlightened, and free. That is the fundamental aim of the
text; it is first and foremost intended for the spiritual upliftment of its
reciters, hearers, and readers. This view is reinforced by the Bhāgavata’s
declaration that a prime reason for Kṛṣṇa’s descent and performance of līlā
is to turn the worldly-minded back toward him.14 Given this well-
established aim of both the Bhāgavata and Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa, let us examine
just two of the ways in which the above narrative confers spiritual benefit.
Firstly, the narrative introduces us to Kṛṣṇa as God, whose limitless energy
(māyā) makes all things possible: within the tiny opening of child Kṛṣṇa’s
mouth his mother sees the entire cosmos and all subtle and gross existences,
including herself, seated as she is, with her son on her lap. And secondly,
the narrative enables us to glimpse the tender, charming dealings of Kṛṣṇa
as Kṛṣṇa, the eternal cowherd boy of Vndavana, while never letting us
forget that this is no ordinary child. The narrative serves to remind us that
although Kṛṣṇa acts like an ordinary human being, he nonetheless retains
his divinity in all circumstances, and can employ his unlimited potencies
whenever and in whatever way he likes.
Yaśodā Binds Kṛṣṇa with Rope
Another quite famous tenth book narrative highlights not only the
paradoxical nature of Kṛṣṇa as God, but also the playfully loving nature of
Kṛṣṇa as K
ṛṣṇ
a. It is the ninth chapter tale of Kṛṣṇa being bound with
rope:15
When Yaśodā interrupts the feeding of Kṛṣṇa to attend to a problem in the
kitchen, her little child becomes annoyed, breaks a container of yogurt, and
hides inside the house, eating from a pot of freshly churned butter. When
Yaśodā returns to the courtyard she immediately spots the broken pot. But
where is rascal Kṛṣṇa? Searching, Yaśodā soon finds him sitting atop a
wooden grinding mortar, handing out her stock of yogurt and butter to the
monkeys, while anxiously anticipating inevitable rebuke. Yaśodā quietly
advances toward Kṛṣṇa with stick in hand, but Kṛṣṇa notices and begins to
flee here and there in fear of his mother.
With some difficulty Yaśodā finally captures Kṛṣṇa, but upon seeing his
beautiful tearful face, she throws aside the stick and opts for a milder form
of punishment: roping Kṛṣṇa to the grinding mortar to prevent further
misdoings and possible self-harm. However, when she proceeds to wrap the
rope around Kṛṣṇa’s waist, it is short by two fingers, leaving her task
incomplete. This occurs not once, not twice, but again and again and again!
Regardless of the number of strands Yaśodā attaches to the original, she is
unable to reach the rope around Kṛṣṇa’s entire waist; it is always short by
two fingers. Finally, seeing Yaśodā straining under the effort, Kṛṣṇa
complies out of love, allowing his mother to bind him.16
Śukadeva Gosvāmī, who narrates this tale to King Parīkit, clearly enjoys
the paradoxical nature of this līlā, pausing regularly to take note of the
irony. He notes that although great yogīs, whose minds are directed by the
power of asceticism, cannot capture the supreme, Yaśodā is able to do so by
the yoga of spontaneous motherly love.17 Moreover, he explains, she
succeeds in binding that supreme being who has neither a beginning nor an
end, neither a within nor a without.18 Kṛṣṇa’s own behavior is the most
paradoxical of all. He is anxious about being caught, he cries when scolded
by his mother, and he is guilty for having broken the rules—all as if he were
a common being. Indeed, all these impossibilities are said to be made
possible through the agency of yoga-māyā. By her power, the infinite can
be measured, and the limitless becomes limited. He who is self-satisfied
desires butter, the embodiment of bliss cries in distress, and the refuge of
the world runs in fear. The transcendent Lord is caught by his mothers
hand, and the all-pervading controller is tied down by a rope. Ultimately,
Kṛṣṇa is said to demonstrate through this līlā “the quality of submission to
his devotee… despite the fact that he is only constrained by his own free
will.”19 As Bhattacharya notes, yoga-māyā “is the power by which
Bhagavān can be simultaneously unlimited and limited. Yoga-māyā
provides for the expression of the free creativity of the Absolute, the
enjoyment of [his] own ecstasy. In other words, it is the principle that
makes for the sports of the divine.”20
The remainder of this chapter largely deals with the loving exchange
between Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs (cowherd maidens) of Vraja, considered by
the Bhāgavata’s commentators to be the most sacred as well as the most
easily misunderstood aspect of the Bhāgavata. Thus, before examining
these sacrosanct topics, it would be good to prepare ourselves by
appreciating how the rāsa-līlā has been understood by the Bhāgavata
commentators and traditions.
Distinguishing Love from Lust, the
Object from Its Reflection
Two key Bhāgavata notions will be discussed below: (1) the notion of the
absolute realm as “the object” and the temporal realm as “the reflection;”
and (2) the notion of love as opposed to lust. Gaining a better understanding
of the Bhāgavata’s perspective on these two conceptions should lay the
groundwork for discussions on the relationship between Kṛṣṇa and the
gopīs.
In a previous chapter we briefly noted that the Bhāgavata several times
employs the simile of reflection (ābhāsa) to illustrate the relation—and the
distinction—between the absolute and the temporal realm, with the former
being the object and the latter being the reflection.21 Here we intend to
revisit this simile in far greater detail, and with a particular purpose in mind.
Oxford Living Dictionaries defines a reflection as “an image seen in a
mirror or shiny surface.”22 In terms of the discussion at hand, we focus on
one particular image. Imagine a crystal-clear lake on a cloudless, sunny
day; imagine that just on the shore of that lake stands an old oak tree, with
its root system partially exposed. Looking into the lake on such a day, one
finds an almost perfect reflection of that tree—a temporary manifestation
that will endure only so long as the sun continues to remain in a particular
position in the sky. But there is a peculiarity about this image, which is here
important to note: looking toward the tree and its image from the opposite
shore, we can see that the reflected tree is inverted, meaning that the shore
tree’s top appears as the reflected tree’s bottom, and the shore tree’s bottom
appears as the reflected tree’s top. In other words, from top to bottom and
everywhere in between, the reflected tree is a reverse image of the shore
tree.
This phenomenon is used analogically by Vaiṣṇava commentators to help
us understand the relation between the absolute and the temporal realm,
much as did Plato’s comparison of objects and their shadows. Here there are
three important things to note. The first is that all the forms in the reflection
—the roots, trunk, branches, twigs, perhaps a couple of birds sitting in the
tree—did not just arise from nothing. Everything in the reflected tree is
there because—and only because—it is there in the shore tree—the shore
tree being in every meaningful way the basis of the reflected tree. Again,
the reflected tree did not just appear from nothing, nor could it exist with
nothing as its basis. Indeed, a knowledgeable person, seeing only the
reflected tree, would logically presume the existence of the shore tree. The
second is that the reflected tree is a short-lived, temporary phenomenon,
whereas the shore tree continues to exist long after the reflected tree has
disappeared. And the third is that all the values of the shore tree are
reversed in the reflected tree—i.e., the highest values in the shore tree
constitute the lowest values in the reflected tree.
At this point, the analogy should be relatively clear. The existence of the
temporal realm—its particular appearance, forms, relationships, and so on
—is based upon the existence of an absolute realm of which it is a
reflection. How can we know that the temporal realm is a reflection? The
Bhāgavata answers because of its temporary nature. How do we know it is
based on a more permanent reality? In the same way we know that the
existence of the reflected tree signals the existence of the shore tree.
A key statement in this regard comes from the Bhagavad-gītā, chapter two,
verse sixteen, where Kṛṣṇa defines the nonexistent as that which has no
endurance and the existent as that which has no cessation.23 In other words,
the prime characteristic of that which is fundamentally existent is that it is
perpetual, never-ending, unceasing, beyond the grip of time, while the
prime characteristic of that which is fundamentally non-existent is that it is
unenduring, ephemeral, terminable, under the grip of time. Put differently,
and to drive home the point once more, that which is said to be existent is
beginningless, endless, and manifest forever, whereas that which is said to
be non-existent has a beginning and an end—it becomes manifest, remains
for some time, and eventually vanishes (like the reflection of the tree at
some point in the course of a 24-hour day).
This definition highlights an important limitation of the reflected-tree
analogy relative to the relationship it is attempting to describe. The problem
is this: in the analogy, the reflected tree is temporary, but its basis, the shore
tree, is also ultimately temporary, and thus must be a reflection as well, as
per the above definition. To avoid an infinite regress, one must posit that the
absolute realm and all that it contains has neither beginning nor end. And
indeed, this is precisely what the Bhāgavata claims: the temporal realm
appears as it does (with its particular forms, objects, creatures, and so on)
because it is a reflection of an absolute counterpart—a beginningless
alternate universe, one might say. Moreover, the relationships between
humans in the temporal realm—between parents and children, friends and
friends, husbands and wives, lovers and lovers, and so on—appear as they
do because they are reflections of the relationships in that beginningless
counterpart—a counterpart from which there is nowhere to regress.
The final point of this analogical explanation requires that we return once
more to the shore of that lake and recall that from top to bottom and
everywhere in between, the reflected tree is a reverse image of the shore
tree. This feature of the reflection is used to indicate that the values of the
temporal realm are inverted reflections (reverse images) of those that
subsist in the absolute realm, with the highest values of the absolute realm
manifesting as the lowest values of the temporal realm.
Following along these lines, it is not difficult to understand that the pure
love of the absolute realm—the highest pinnacle of love of God—will
naturally resemble its reflected counterpart in the temporal realm (how
could it be otherwise?). Yet, according to the Bhāgavata, there is a world of
difference between the two—a difference that the Bhāgavata wants us to
particularly understand with respect to the love of the gopīs for Kṛṣṇa and
his love for them. Like the inverted values of the tree reflected in the water,
that which constitutes the “top-most” expression of selfless love in the
absolute realm is said to constitute the “bottom-most” form of selfish lust
(and immoral betrayal) in the temporal realm.
This brings us to the second topic mentioned at the beginning of this
section: the need to draw a distinction between the love of the absolute
realm (which in its highest expression can superficially appear like lust) and
the lust of the temporal realm (which is often misleadingly identified as
love).
While the gopīs’ expression of ecstatic love for Kṛṣṇa and his expression
of love for them may superficially appear like the lustful dealings of this
world, commentators tell us that there is a vast difference between the two.
Kṛṣṇadasa Kavirāja explains:
Lust and love have different characteristics, just as iron and gold have
different natures. The desire to gratify one’s own senses is kāma [lust], but
the desire to please the senses of Lord Kṛṣṇa is prema [love] … Whenever
there is unselfish love, that is its style. The reservoir of love derives
pleasure when the lovable object is pleased … Lusty desires are
experienced when one is concerned with [one’s] own personal sense
gratification. The mood of the gopīs is not like that. Their only desire is to
satisfy the senses of Kṛṣṇa. Among the gopīs, there is not a pinch of desire
for sense gratification. Their only desire is to give pleasure to Kṛṣṇa, and
this is why they mingle with Him and enjoy with Him.24
In the absolute realm, the exchange of love between Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs is
known as parakīya-rasa, which is something like the relationship between a
married girl and a boy other than her husband. In the value system of the
absolute realm (the “shore tree”), parakīya-rasa is considered the purest
expression of supreme love for God, whereas in the inverted value system
of the temporal realm (the “reflected tree”), it is generally considered most
inexcusable and immoral. In the loving sentiments of the absolute realm, as
induced by Yoga-māyā, both Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs are said to forget
themselves in the rapture of spiritual love. Bhaktivedānta notes that “by the
influence of such forgetfulness, the attractive beauty of the gopīs plays a
prominent part in the transcendental satisfaction of the Lord, who has
nothing to do with mundane sex.”25 Indeed, the Bhāgavata proclaims that
merely by hearing about the loving affairs of Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs one is
rapidly cured of kāma (worldly lust): “One who is filled with faith, who
hears or describes this līlā, having regained the highest devotion for the
Beloved Lord, has lust, the disease of the heart, quickly removed without
delay.”26 Keeping this philosophical background in mind, we can now
proceed to our discussion of Kṛṣṇa’s rāsa-līlā.
Kṛṣṇa and the Rāsa-līlā
The Bhāgavata’s tenth book describes how the enchanting sound of
Kṛṣṇa’s flute would awaken feelings of ardent love in the hearts of the
cowherd maidens of Vraja.27 When, on a moonlit night, Kṛṣṇa sounds his
flute, the gopīs run to him in great haste, setting aside all else in their
village lives. Whatever they may have been doing prior to that sound—
attending to their babies, husbands, and cows, boiling milk, applying
makeup, and so on—is summarily dropped as they rush toward that sound,
even as various family members attempt to block their way; not all,
however, are so fortunate. Some are locked in their rooms, and thus are
prevented from being with Kṛṣṇa. With no external means of achieving
union with the object of their love, these imprisoned gopīs absorb
themselves in deep meditation (samādhi) on their beloved Kṛṣṇa. The
Bhāgavata declares, in this connection, that both those who were able to
meet Kṛṣṇa and those who were prevented from doing so achieved
perfection in yoga. Moreover, even though the imprisoned gopīs meditated
on Kṛṣṇa not as the supreme being, but rather as their personal lover, their
practice of yoga nonetheless united them with Kṛṣṇa. The Bhāgavata
explains that the intense pain of separation from Kṛṣṇa (viraha-tīvra-tāpa)
burned away these gopīs’ past karma and unshackled them from “bodies
comprised of the gu
as:”
For those gopīs who could not go to see Kṛṣṇa, intolerable separation from
their beloved caused an intense agony that burned away all impious karma.
By meditating upon Him they realized His embrace, and the ecstasy they
then felt exhausted their material piety. Although Lord Kṛṣṇa is the
Supreme Soul, these girls simply thought of Him as their male lover and
associated with Him in that intimate mood. Thus their karmic bondage was
nullified and they abandoned their gross material bodies.28
In his commentary, Viśvanātha suggests that when the gopīs’ material
bodies were burned by the fire of separation from Kṛṣṇa, they regained
awareness of their eternal spiritual forms. Endowed with the appropriate
identity and mood, the gopīs then experienced the infinite bliss of
meditatively embracing “the astonishing divine body of Acyuta (Kṛṣṇa),”
which was full of love for them. Viśvanātha further notes that the joy they
felt made both their material and their spiritual good fortune (man˙gala
)
seem insignificant (k
ī
a). In other words, upon “seeing” (in a
metaphorical sense) the extreme bliss that overwhelmed the gopīs due to
their meditative embrace of Kṛṣṇa, all the sensual pleasures of millions of
universes, and even the non-material pleasures of spiritual bliss
(brahmānanda) “became withered, inferior, and insignificant.”29
Regarding the gopīs that were able to dance in the celebrated rāsa-līlā, they
achieved perfection through direct association with Kṛṣṇa. Commentators
describe the rāsa dance as the perfect yoga (or union) between Kṛṣṇa and
his eternal emanations, and the text suggests that these gopīs received this
opportunity because they had already achieved the highest stage of yoga
prior to joining the rāsa dance.30 Nonetheless, it is said that these already
glorious yogīs became even more glorious—and their yoga more profound
—due to Kṛṣṇa’s direct association. Kṛṣṇa’s touch is said to remove all
sins,31 destroy all sorrows, and increase the pleasures of love, causing his
beloveds to forget other passions.32 The Bhāgavata notes that upon bathing
their senses in the beauty of Kṛṣṇa and contacting his person in the rāsa-
līlā, the gopīs’ senses became fully purified and overcome with delight (see
Figure 5.2).33
Figure 5.2 The yoga of the rāsa-līlā of Kṛṣṇa (yogeśvara) and the gopīs
(yogīs) takes place by the arrangement of Kṛṣṇa’s yoga-māyā.
Here it is important to point out that the Bhāgavata sets the bhakti of the
rāsa-līlā narrative within the framework of yoga—to the point where the
gopīs are literally referred to as yogīs34 and Kṛṣṇa is referred to as the
master of yoga (yogeśvara),35 or the master of all masters of yoga
(yogeśvareśvara).36 The fact that the Bhāgavata considers the gopīs to be
not only Kṛṣṇa’s most intimate associates, but also the highest yogīs is
given sharp focus in the tenth book account of Uddhava’s visit to
Vndāvana:
Uddhava, one of Kṛṣṇa’s closest friends and advisors in the kingdom of
Dvāraka, travels to Vndāvana to console the vraja-vāsīs (particularly the
gopīs), who had been plunged into an ocean of suffering when Kṛṣṇa left
Vndāvana, never to return. In Vndāvana, Uddhava unsuccessfully
attempts to console and pacify the gopīs’ feeling of separation, but in the
process, he becomes so captivated by their intense devotional attachment to
Kṛṣṇa that he himself develops an ardent desire to obtain the very same
sentiment. Uddhava, himself a highly evolved and extremely qualified
associate of Kṛṣṇa, recognizes the gopīs’ superior position, considering
their bhakti to be more exalted than that which has been attained by any
other category of devotee. Thus he humbly begs to be blessed with the dust
of the gopīs’ feet:
These gopīs are the highest embodied beings on the earth; their love for
Govinda [Kṛṣṇa], the soul of everything, is perfected. Those who are
fearful of the material world aspire to this and so do sages, and so do we
ourselves. What is the use of births as Brahmā?37 Aho! May I become any
of the shrubs, creepers, or plants in Vndāvana that enjoy the dust of the
feet of these women. They have renounced their own relatives, who are so
hard to give up … and worshipped the feet of Mukunda.38
In the Bhāgavata’s third book there is a detailed description of the eightfold
yoga system (yama, niyama, āsana, prā
āyāma, pratyāhāra, dhāra
ā,
dhyāna, and samādhi), similar to that of Patañjali’s, presented such that the
end result of yoga practice is the type of vraja-līlā-bhakti achieved by the
gopīs of Vndāvana.39 Patañjali’s Yoga-sūtras presents five yamas40 and
five niyamas,41 each of which is expanded to twelve in the Bhāgavata.42
The Purāa then recommends that the yogī sit on a comfortable āsana,43
practice breath exercises (prā
āyāma) to control the mind and senses,44 and
withdraw the sense organs (pratyāhāra) from their respective objects.45 The
Bhāgavata’s presentation of the first three stages, āsana, prā
āyāma,
pratyāhāra, is almost identical to that which is found in the Yoga-sūtras,
and is only briefly described.46
The major distinctions between the Bhāgavata Purāa and the Yoga-sūtras
center on the final three stages: dhāra
ā, dhyāna, and samādhi. In the
Yoga-sūtras, the object of one’s dhāra
ā (holding in the mind or memory)
is not very important; it is the act of dhāra
ā itself that produces the yogīs
extraordinary powers.47 For the Bhāgavata, however, the object of
meditation is highly significant; dhāra
ā is not devoid of content.48 The
object and aim of dhyāna (meditation) in the Bhāgavata is the exquisite
eternal form49 and līlā of Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu.50
The Bhāgavata reviews the first five stages of yoga (yama, niyama, āsana,
prā
āyāma, and pratyāhāra) in ten verses,51 but then expends twice that
number providing an elaborate description of Viṣṇu’s form. The yogī is
instructed to hold this form within the mind (dhāra
ā) and wholly meditate
upon it (dhyāna).52 The idea is to begin one’s meditation by holding
Viṣṇu’s “lotus” feet within the mind and then to gradually ascend his form
until his all-enchanting smile has been reached:
An object of effortless meditation is the Lord’s laughter, revealing a row of
fine jasminelike teeth, reddened by his full, lustrous lips. Desiring to see
nothing else with mind offered in deep devotion, one should meditate on the
laughter of Vishnu, who resides in the core of the heart.53
In the rāsa-līlā narrative, we also find the gopīs deeply absorbed in specific
meditation on the beauty of Kṛṣṇa’s face and form. Hardy lists twenty-five
verses indicating that “all the mental, emotional, and psychic processes of
the [gopīs] are concentrated on Kṛṣṇa.”54 At various places throughout the
text, the Bhāgavata describes that the gopīs’ mind,55 heart,56 intellect,57
consciousness,58 hope,59 and body60 are all absorbed in Kṛṣṇa. The gopīs
of Vraja, singing to each other of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā, pass the days happily, with
their hearts [tac-citta] and minds [tan-manaska] completely absorbed in
Kṛṣṇa.61
As already noted above, when the yogī attains the state of complete
absorption (samādhi)62 in Viṣṇu’s form, he/she experiences devotional
sentiments similar to those of the gopīs:
By thus meditating one gains deep feeling for Bhagavan Hari, the heart
flowing with devotion and horripilation arising out of great joy. Being
suddenly overwhelmed by tearful, incoherent expressions of longing, even
the hooklike mind then gradually withdraws …63
According to the Bhāgavata, those yogīs that succeed in their practice of the
eightfold path attain the state of ecstatic love for God, whereby the heart
melts, hairs stand on end, and so forth. This state of samādhi differs
markedly from the state of kaivalya described in the Yoga-sūtras—i.e., a
type of isolation that is free from the fluctuations of the mind.64 Indeed, the
third book concludes its discussion by noting that the perfected yogī-
devotee rejects all types of liberation (mok
a), including residence in the
absolute realm (sālokya), god-like wealth, power, and glory (sār
ṣṭ
i), God’s
direct association (sāmīpya), a god-like eternal form (sārūpya), and the
attainment of undifferentiated oneness (ekatva). Such self-satisfied bhaktas
do not accept anything except God’s service.65
The yoga of the Bhāgavata is steeped in ecstatic love for God, as displayed
in the intimate loving bond between Kṛṣṇa and the residents of Vraja, the
highest expression of which is found in the depiction of the gopīs love for
Kṛṣṇa. Schweig notes, in this connection, that in the devotion of the gopīs,
yoga is used as a tool for love: “All the cowherd maidens are effectively
yogīs of love, whose minds and hearts are ever fixed on their beloved Lord.
Kṛṣṇa is called, in several places throughout the drama, the ‘Lord of all
masters of yoga,’ yogeśvareśvara, and the gopīs are certainly such masters
of yoga.”66
Here it should be remembered, however, that the yoga of the rāsa-līlā takes
place according to the arrangement and supervision of Kṛṣṇa’s yoga-māyā.
The Bhagavad-gītā notes that māyā, the energy emanating from Kṛṣṇa’s
yoga, is difficult to overcome for those that dwell in willfull separation
from Kṛṣṇa.67 This energy (or potency) is fully under Kṛṣṇa’s control and
it is the energy through which Kṛṣṇa controls others. In the Bhāgavata’s
tenth book, however, where “yoga” is primarily seen as the intimate ecstatic
union between Kṛṣṇa and his beloveds (the yogeśvara and the yogīs),
māyā’s primary role is to facilitate that union.
Thus, a distinctive feature of the Bhāgavata’s conception of yoga-māyā
concerns the notion that both the yogīs (gopīs) and the yogeśvara (Kṛṣṇa)
become connected and controlled by yoga-māyā, just as two bulls are
controlled by a yoke (yoga). By the arrangement of yoga-māyā, the yogīs
and the yogeśvara attain the state of perfect yoga, the rāsa-līlā, as depicted
in the Figure 5.3, which is a modified version of the diagram depicting the
structure of yoga in the Bhagavad-gītā (found in Schweig’s Gītā
translation):68
Figure 5.3 Structure of yoga in the rāsa-līlā (after Schweig).
Let us now take a closer look at the ways in which yoga-māyā orchestrates
the connection between Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs and intensifies bhakti within
the rāsa-līlā. The five chapters of the rāsa-līlā vividly illustrate yoga-
māyā’s unique function in the Bhāgavata Purāa.
Yoga-māyā in the Rāsa-līlā
From the very first verse of the rāsa-līlā narrative, the Bhāgavata
announces yoga-māyā’s presence: “Even Bhagavān [Kṛṣṇa], seeing those
nights with autumn-blooming mallikā flowers, made up his mind to enjoy
love, relying upon his yoga-māyā.”69 Although this constitutes the only
explicit appearance of this dual compound in the five chapters that describe
this eventful tale,70 the fact of Kṛṣṇa’s “reliance” makes plain yoga-māyā’s
vital role as his “yogic power,” which is indirectly emphasized by the
Bhāgavata’s frequent references to Kṛṣṇa as “the master of yoga”
(yogeśvara)71 or the “the master of the masters of yoga”
(yogeśvareśvara).72
Of the many events that occur during the rāsa-līlā, yoga-māyā is
particularly responsible for drawing Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs together for the
performance of yoga. Yoga-māyā is seen in this role even before the above
referenced opening verse, where Kṛṣṇa calls upon her to facilitate his
desire for enjoyment. Several chapters prior to this, the Bhāgavata also
describes how the gopīs worshipped Yoga-māyā (goddess Kātyāyanī) for an
entire month in order to obtain Kṛṣṇa as their husband:
In the first month of the hemanta (winter season), the young girls of
Nanda’s Vraj observed the vow to worship the goddess Kātyāyanī by eating
sacrificial food. After bathing in the waters of the Kālindī River at sunrise,
they made an image of the goddess from sand near the water [and prayed]
… “O goddess Kātyāyanī, great Māyā, great yogī, supreme Lord; honor to
you! Please make the son of Nanda, the gopa [Kṛṣṇa], my husband, O
Goddess.” Uttering this mantra, those young girls performed pūjā
worship.73
Once the gopīs successfully complete their vow, Kṛṣṇa assures them that
because of their worship, their desires will be fulfilled: “Go now, girls, and
return to Vraja. Your desire is fulfilled, for in My company you will enjoy
the coming nights. After all, this was the purpose of your vow to worship
goddess Kātyāyanī [Yoga-māyā], O pure-hearted ones.”74 The “nights”
(k
apā
) prophesized by Kṛṣṇa refer to the nights of the rāsa-līlā, which
occur a few days later, facilitated by the connecting power of yoga-māyā.
The fact that both Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs seek refuge in yoga-māyā to fulfill
their union (yoga) is no coincidence. Here we see yoga-māyā’s essential
role of “yoking” together the yogī and the yogeśvara with the aim of
intimate loving exchange. Schweig explains: “The spiritual actor and
actresses, God and the pure souls, by virtue of the uniting force of yoga-
māyā verily lose themselves in this divine aesthetic of līlā, in which all
activities are executed for the purpose of increasing the intensity and
intimacy of their love.”75
As already noted above, a primary way in which yoga-māyā intensifies
bhakti is by causing Kṛṣṇa’s most intimate devotees to forget his majesty.
Curiously, yoga-māyā appears to have a somewhat similar function in both
the temporal and the absolute realms. In the temporal realm, she causes
those that desire to exist apart from God to forget not only him, but also
their eternal connection to him; and in the absolute realm she causes those
that desire unfettered intimacy with God to forget his almighty status. In
other words, in the temporal realm, māyā functions to distance the
individual self from God, whereas in Kṛṣṇa’s vraja-līlā, māyā serves to
intimately connect the two.
In this connection, we have reviewed in the tale of Kṛṣṇa swallowing clay
how yoga-māyā causes Kṛṣṇa’s mother to forget that he is God, thus
enabling her to wholly accept Kṛṣṇa as her own natural child. This,
however, leaves an even larger question still unanswered: what of Kṛṣṇa
(God) himself, when he assumes the role of child, friend, or lover? What
influence can yoga-māyā have over his remembrance and forgetfulness?
From what can be discerned from the rāsa-līlā and other tenth book
narratives, it appears that yoga-māyā does somehow enable Kṛṣṇa to forget
that he is God, thus allowing him to genuinely experience all the personal
dynamics of his intimate relationships with the unalloyed devotees that are
spontaneously drawn to him.76
To help us comprehend this singular aspect of Kṛṣṇa’s dealings in the
absolute realm, which from our relative vantage point remain largely
incomprehensible, the Bhāgavata compares Kṛṣṇa’s forgetfulness to that of
an actor who is absorbed in his role on stage.77 For the period of time that
one is in costume and on stage, fully immersed in one’s performance, there
is no space in one’s consciousness for memory of one’s factual identities.
Indeed, the intrusion of such memory in the midst of a performance could
only serve to interfere with one’s role on stage.
This analogy helps us to obtain only a small grasp of how even the
omnipotent, all-knowing supreme being can forget who he is (through the
agency of yoga-māyā) while accepting the role of a child, friend, or lover in
the absolute realm, where Kṛṣṇa and his intimate devotees enjoy
uncountable eternal līlās, “pastimes.” Kṛṣṇa is the supreme playwrite,
producer, and actor, losing himself completely in the play, while yoga-māyā
sets the stage, creates the settings and directs. In these enactments, Kṛṣṇa is
pleased by wholly pleasing his eternal servants, parents, friends, and lovers,
and they are pleased by wholly pleasing him—in keeping with the above
definition of unselfish love.
During the rāsa-līlā, as previously noted, the gopīs were not conscious of
Kṛṣṇa’s all-powerful, all-knowing majestic feature; they simply viewed
him as their beloved: “O sage, they [the gopīs] related to Kṛṣṇa as their
supreme lover, not as Brahman, the absolute truth.”78
Viśvanātha comments in this connection that yoga-māyā makes the
residents of Vndāvana—the gopīs, cowherd boys and Kṛṣṇa’s parents—
forgetful of Kṛṣṇa’s power and opulence according to the intensity of their
love (prema) in a particular bhāva.79 The word bhāva can be translated as
temperament, feeling, sentiment, disposition, manner of being, and
relationship.80 The gopīsprema is imbued with mādhurya-bhāva (amorous
love), Yaśodā’s with vātsalya-bhāva (parental love) and Kṛṣṇa’s friends’
with sākhya-bhāva (friendship).
Interestingly, Viśvanātha goes on to note that when the bhāva of a given
Vraja resident is disturbed, this results in instantaneous re-awareness that
Kṛṣṇa is indeed almighty God. Thus we find in the rāsa-līlā chapters that
while the gopīs generally relate to Kṛṣṇa as their beloved cowherd boy,
they awaken to his position as God in times of calamity, upon his
separation, or even when he speaks to them in indifferent or sarcastic tones.
Upon hearing Kṛṣṇa’s flute during the evening of the full moon, the gopīs
immediately abandoned their family members, and rushed to meet him in
the dead of night. However, when they arrived, Kṛṣṇa appeared to be
indifferent, even trying to convince them to return home. This apparently
callous treatment by their most beloved is said to have disturbed the gopīs
bhāva. Thus their remembrance of Kṛṣṇa’s majesty awakened and they
began to address him more in the manner of Vedāntic philosophers than of
amorous lovers: “[O Kṛṣṇa,] You are the eternal beloved, O soul of all, and
so the learned place their affection in you. What is the use of husbands and
children who simply cause problems? Therefore, O supreme Lord, be
pleased with us.”81
After Kṛṣṇa accepted their request, the rāsa dance began, and the gopīs
once again came under the influence of yoga-māyā, seeing Kṛṣṇa only as
their most beloved lover. After some time, however, Kṛṣṇa suddenly
vanished from the rāsa dance, leaving the gopīs alone in the forest in the
dead of night. This, of course, placed the gopīs in great distress, disturbing
their bhāva yet again. Thus they regained their awareness of Kṛṣṇa as God,
and began offering him prayers. The gopīs’ prayers are found in chapter
thirty-one of the tenth book. Here is a brief rendition of but a few:
[O Kṛṣṇa,] you are not factually Yaśodā’s son, but are rather the indwelling
witness in the hearts of all embodied beings. Because Brahmā entreated you
to descend, you have come to protect the universe [10.31.4]. Your lotus
hand, which holds the hand of Lakmī, the goddess of fortune, removes all
fear from the hearts of the fearful [10.31.5], your lotus feet obliterate the
accumulated sins of those that seek your shelter [10.31.7], and the
narrations of your activities shower good fortune upon all that hear them
[10.31.9].82
Apart from the example of the gopīs, the Bhāgavata tells of other instances
whereby Kṛṣṇa’s friends, parents, and others regained awareness of Kṛṣṇa
as God when their bhāva was disturbed. During the Govardhan līlā, for
example, Indra, a higher being of this universe, devastates the village of
Vraja with a veritable hurricane of wind, rain and flooding, which causes all
the vraja-vāsīs to become afraid and “instinctively” turn to Kṛṣṇa as God
for protection—despite the fact that only moments earlier they were relating
to Kṛṣṇa as their vulnerable child, co-equal friend, or boy-like paramour:
The livestock, shivering because of the high wind and rain, and the gopas
and gopīs, afflicted by cold, approached Kṛṣṇa for protection. Covering
their heads and shielding their children with their bodies, shivering and
tormented by the rain, they approached the soles of the feet of the Lord:
‘Kṛṣṇa, most virtuous Kṛṣṇa, master – you are compassionate towards
your devotees. Please protect Gokula, which accepts you as Lord, from the
wrath of this divinity.’ Seeing them pounded unconscious by the excessive
wind and hail, Lord Hari reflected on what Indra had done in his fury.83
Once the devastation is over and things return to normal, everyone’s
individual bhāva is restored and the vraja-vāsīs again relate to Kṛṣṇa as
Kṛṣṇa, rather than as God.
Regarding Kṛṣṇa’s apparent lack of self-awareness during līlā, Viśvanātha
notes that although Kṛṣṇa is omniscient, his desire to experience the
intense prema (pure love) of the vraja-vāsīs (his most elevated devotees)
prompts him to voluntarily withdraw his omniscience as he likes. Citing the
example of Yaśoda, he notes that her unconditional love for Kṛṣṇa binds
them together with ropes of mutual possessiveness and forgetfulness.84
Kṛṣṇa is fully the child, friend, or lover to the various inhabitants of Vraja,
and so long as his bhāva is not disturbed, he remains unmindful of the fact
that he is the supreme being, the omnipotent cause of all causes, and so
forth. When Kṛṣṇa is frolicking in the forest with his cowherd boyfriends
and cows, he does not remember that he is God. However, when any
incident arises that places the boys and cows in jeopardy, threatens their
lives, or disturbs them in any way, Kṛṣṇa at once becomes “who he is,” and
with only a slight portion of his inexhaustible power, immediately saves the
day. This is a scenario that repeatedly plays out in tenth book narratives
concerning destructive figures like Pūtanā, Aghāsura, Kāliya, Bakāsura, and
others.
With respect to this extraordinary aspect of God’s being, as presented in the
Bhāgavata, Viśvanātha poses the following intriguing question: during līlā,
when Kṛṣṇa appears to be influenced by yoga-māyā, does he truly lose
awareness that he is God, or is he merely “pretending”? If we take the
position that Kṛṣṇa is merely pretending, this calls into question his
capacity to genuinely enjoy sweet, loving relations with his most intimate
devotees; if, on the other hand, we take the position that Kṛṣṇa factually
loses cognizance of himself as God under yoga-māyā’s influence, this calls
into question his omnipotent, omniscient status as the supreme being. Both
of these alternatives seem to impose a type of limitation on that which is
theoretically supposed to be unlimited. Let us examine this question in a bit
more depth.
The Bhāgavata tells us that in the highest Goloka as well as its facsimile
here on earth, God is perpetually absorbed in loving exchange with his most
intimate devotees, meaning that he theoretically exists in a perpetual state
of self-forgetting. How then could God continue to maintain the three
worlds? How could he accept and respond to the worship, prayers, services,
etc. of his numerous dependents in both the absolute and the temporal
realm?85 Commentators suggest that these and other such questions expose
the inadequacies and limitations of our own perceptual and cognitive
abilities, since we are attempting to comprehend a being and a dimension of
reality that is beyond our ken. It would be like Plato’s cave-dwelling
shadowlanders, who know only the dark two-dimensional images moving
before them, attempting to comprehend the color, variety, breadth, depth,
and motion of the three-dimensional world existing just across the border of
their cave. In the case of God and the absolute realm, however, the
challenge relative to our human limitations is far, far greater.
Nonetheless, since is it also in our nature to ponder over the inconceivable,
commentators like Viśvanātha have attempted to share their thoughts and
understandings on the matter of Kṛṣṇa’s self-forgetting. He concludes that
in the realm of Vndāvana, Kṛṣṇa is so absorbed in his dealings with his
friends, lovers, and parents that he truly does lose awareness that he is the
omniscient, omnipotent supreme being. For evidence, he turns to the
Bhāgavata itself, particularly chapter eight of the first book, in which Queen
Kuntī offers her direct prayers to Kṛṣṇa, who is standing before her. In one
such expression Kuntī admits to being bewildered (vimohayati) by Kṛṣṇa’s
Vndāvana līlā, recalling how he—the all-powerful supreme being, who is
feared by fear itself—ran in fear from his mother when she tried to tie her
naughty child to a wooden grinding mortar.86 Viśvanātha argues that if
Kuntī’s opinion had been that Kṛṣṇa was only pretending to be afraid, there
would have been no cause for bewilderment. And yet she states
unequivocally that she is indeed confounded by the contradictions inherent
in God’s childhood dealings. From this, Viśvanātha surmises that while
involved in his Vndāvana līlā Kṛṣṇa does truly lose awareness of his
supreme status as God. But then, how could God be omniscient, and yet be
unaware of something so fundamental as himself?
Viśvanātha responds by stating that Kṛṣṇa is simultaneously omniscient
and self-forgetting, and that this is made possible by means of his acintya
sakti—his inconceivable energy (or capacity) through which all
impossibilities are made easily possible. And with the word
“inconceivable” we arrive at our answer—and the only answer, it seems,
that we can have about the incomprehensible being that is God (granted that
such a being exists).
We should note that Kuntī herself never attempts to resolve her own
perplexity—she remains fundamentally confounded by Kṛṣṇa’s activities.
Indeed, the Bhāgavata’s polymorphic monotheism is completely at variance
with our own experience of persons in this world. Like Plato’s cave-
dwellers, we ask how there could be a being—a person—with an original
eternal form that never loses integrity even as it expands such that it
literally becomes (yet does not become) everything, encompasses (yet does
not encompass) everything, exists within (yet does not exist within) all?
How are we to conceive of the inconceivable, comprehend the
incomprehensible? These and other such questions lie unanswered at the
very heart of Kṛṣṇa’s Vndāvana līlā—and in large measure they must
remain so. The Bhāgavata shows again and again throughout its pages that
no one—not Kuntī, not Bhīma, not Brahmā, not Śiva, not the greatest
saints and sages—can fully comprehend the supposed being that is God.
Apart from employing yoga-māyā to facilitate intimate and unfettered
relations between himself and the vraja-vāsīs, Kṛṣṇa also employs her to
heighten the intensity of ecstatic love by facilitating marvelous, mystical
feats. The Bhāgavata explains, in this connection, that during the rāsa-līlā,
while dancing with an untold number of gopīs, Kṛṣṇa employed his yoga-
māyā to expand into multiple forms and cover the perceptions of the gopīs
such that each gopī thought that Kṛṣṇa was dancing and interacting only
with her:
The festival of the rāsa dance commenced with a circular formation of
gopīs. The supreme Lord of yoga (yogeśvara), Kṛṣṇa, entered among them,
between each pair—each thought that she alone was at his side as he placed
his [arm around her neck] …87
While the text makes no direct mention of yoga-māyā, her involvement as
Kṛṣṇa’s potency is obvious since Kṛṣṇa is referred to as yogeśvara, the
master of yoga, meaning the master of the natural potency that enables him
to effortlessly create such extraordinary yogic feats. In his commentary on
this verse, Viśvanātha also reads yoga as yoga-māyā: “[The word] yoga
refers to yoga-māyā, the great potency who is expert in doing the
impossible for her Lord Sri Kṛṣṇa. Knowing that Kṛṣṇa desired to
embrace all the gopīs simultaneously, yoga-māyā manifested a Kṛṣṇa for
each gopī to solve this problem.”88
By multiplying himself in many forms, Kṛṣṇa is able to dance with each
gopī, hand in hand. Yoga-māyā’s facilitation increases the intensity of the
gopīs’ love, because each gopī thinks that Kṛṣṇa is especially favoring
her.89 Here again we see Yoga-māyā’s central role in intensifying bhakti.
Apart from her service of bringing Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs together for the
rāsa-līlā, the Bhāgavata notes that māyā (or yoga-māyā) also serves to
bewilder the gopīs husbands such that they feel no resentment toward
Kṛṣṇa:
The husband cowherds of Vraja felt no jealousy whatsoever toward Kṛṣṇa.
Deluded by his [Kṛṣṇa’s] power of māyā, each husband thought his wife
had remained all the while by his side.90
The text makes clear, however, that the gopīs themselves were not aware
that yoga-māyā had so deluded their husbands; they had come to be with
Kṛṣṇa in the dead of night, despite the consequences of exposure. Still,
when they finally reach Kṛṣṇa, he coyly (and guilefully) advises that they
had better return home: “Your mothers, fathers, sons, brothers, and
husbands are worried because they cannot find you. Do not cause your
relatives concern.”91 The gopīs, of course, heartfully decline to do so, as
Kṛṣṇa knew they would—his aim being only to increase their love for him.
Commentators praise the gopīs as exemplars of devotion, because their
love, unlike that of Kṛṣṇa’s wives in Dvārakā, involves a greater degree of
risk and sacrifice. Indeed, Kṛṣṇa himself praises their bhakti during the
rāsa-līlā: “You have broken the enduring shackles of the household, and
have served me. You are full of goodness and without fault, and I am unable
to reciprocate [your love], even in the lifetime of a god. Therefore, let your
reward be your own excellence.”92
Because the gopīs’ love for Kṛṣṇa never waivers in the least, even in the
face of the most difficult and potentially compromising circumstances,
Rūpa Gosvāmī characterizes their bhakti as samartha-rati, or selfless love:
love of another that is completely free from considerations for one’s own
happiness and that remains undisturbed and uninterrupted come what may.
Rūpa Gosvāmī identifies this as the highest type of love:93
Those girls who with great love offer themselves to Kṛṣṇa without caring
for religious principles, and without caring what happens to them in this
world or the next, are known as the parakīya lovers of Kṛṣṇa. Even though
the gopīs were so much in love with Kṛṣṇa that they jumped over the path
of religious principles to become His lovers, Arundhati and the other chaste
women offer them all respect and worship. Even though the gopīs are
village girls living in the rural area of Vndāvana forest, the slight fragrance
of their sweetness has dissolved the great beauty and opulence of the
goddess of fortune. The exalted position of the gopīs is rare in the three
worlds. I pray that these gopī friends of Kṛṣṇa may grant transcendental
happiness to you.94
Dual Roles of Māyā
In the rāsa-līlā, often regarded as the Bhāgavata’s climax, māyā’s role
differs markedly from her role as portrayed at the beginning of the text. In
the Bhāgavata’s first book, māyā is introduced as an important element in
Vyāsa’s meditative trance (samādhi). As previously explained, “through the
yoga of devotion” Vyāsa envisions three things: (1) the “complete person”
(puru
a pūr
a); (2) the energy or potency (māyā) belonging to and
depending upon that complete person; and, (3) the individual selves (ātman)
who are deluded by that energy or potency.95 We find two significant
differences between the depiction of māyā in Vyāsa’s meditative trance and
the depiction found in the rāsa-līlā. The first difference concerns the
relationship between Kṛṣṇa and māyā and the second concerns the
relationship between māyā and the living beings.
In Vyāsa’s meditative trance, māyā’s relationship with Bhagavān is
described using the word apāśrita, “dependent upon” or “resorting to”—
māyā is said to be fully dependent on Bhagavān. Interestingly, the opening
verse of the rāsa-līlā uses the same Sanskrit word apāśrita to describe the
relationship between Bhagavān and māyā, but in reverse order—here,
Kṛṣṇa chooses to depend on māyā. Kṛṣṇa’s taking refuge in māyā occurs
only in the Bhāgavata’s tenth book.
The second difference regards the relationship between māyā and the souls.
In both Vyāsa’s vision and in the rāsa-līlā, māyā serves as Kṛṣṇa’s
deluding energy meant to bewilder living beings. In Vyāsa’s vision, māyā
bewilders the living beings that wish to forget their relationship with God,
causing an undesirable condition of suffering. In the rāsa-līlā narrative,
however, māyā serves to cover the awareness of God’s majesty from his
most loving devotees, thus enabling them to interact with him in greater
intimacy and abounding love. In the absolute realm of Vraja, succumbing to
māyā’s influence is the highest attainment of life and the ultimate goal of
yoga.
Thus, in the context of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā, māyā serves not as the potency of
delusion, but rather as the energy that reconnects finite souls with the divine
play of Kṛṣṇa. Instead of forgetting God, the souls now forget that he is
God, so that they may play their role in relationship with him. Indeed,
Kṛṣṇa himself voluntarily submits to the power of yoga-māyā, losing
himself in this divine drama, thus increasing the intensity and intimacy of
his devotees’ love for him.
Māyā in the Bhāgavata Purāņa: Human Suffering and Divine Play. Gopal
K. Gupta, Oxford University Press (2020).
© Gopal K. Gupta. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198856993.001.0001
1 Gupta, The Caitanya Vai
ṣṇ
ava Vedānta of Jīva Gosvāmī: When
Knowledge Meets Devotion, 203.
2 Friedhelm Hardy, Viraha-Bhakti: The Early History of K
ṛṣṇ
a Devotion in
South India, Oxford University South Asian Studies Series (Delhi: Oxford,
1983), 496.
3 Bhagavad-Gita 10.9.
4 Bhagavad-Gita 11.41–2.
5 BhP 1.1.2.
6 BhP 1.2.6.
7 BhP 3.29.7–10.
8 BhP 3.29.11–12.
9 BhP 3.29.13.
10 BhP 6.17.28.
11 BhP 10.8.32–45, paraphrased from Bryant, Krishna: Beautiful Legend of
God.
12 BhP 10.9.20, trans. Bryant:
nema
viriñco na bhavo na śrīr apy a
ga-sa
śrayā
prasāda
lebhire gopī yat tat prāpa vimuktidāt ||20||
13 BhP 1.3.28, k
ṛṣṇ
as tu bhagavān svayam. For a full discussion of
Kṛṣṇa’s position in the Bhāgavata Purā
a, see Freda Matchett, K
ṛṣṇ
a:
Lord or Avatāra?: The Relationship between K
ṛṣṇ
a and Vi
ṣṇ
u (Richmond:
Curzon, 2001).
14 BhP 10.1.4.
15 BhP 10.9.
16 BhP 10.9, paraphrased from Bryant, Krishna: Beautiful Legend of God.
17 BhP 10.9.21.
18 BhP 10.9.13:
na cāntar na bahir yasya na pūrva
nāpi cāparam
pūrvāpara
bahiś cāntar jagato yo jagac ca ya
||13||
19 BhP 10.9.19, trans. Bryant.
20 Siddheswar Bhattacharya, The Philosophy of the Śrīmad Bhāgavata, 2
vols. (Santiniketan: Visva-Bharati, 1960), 50–1.
21 BhP 2.9.34; 3.7.11; 7.15.58.
22 Oxford Living Dictionaries.
23 Bhaktivedānta Swami, Bhagavad-gītā As It Is (New York: Collier Books,
1972), 93.
24 Cc. Adi 4.163; Cc. Adi 4.199–200; Cc. Madhya 8.217–18, trans.
Bhaktivedanta Swami.
25 Bhaktivedanta Swami, Cc. Adi 4.30.
26 BhP 10.32.39. in Schweig, Dance of Divine Love.
27 BhP 10.29.4.
28 BhP 10.29.10–11, trans. H.D. Goswami:
du
saha-pre
ṣṭ
ha-viraha-tīvra-tāpa-dhutāśubhā
dhyāna-prāptācyutāśle
a-nirv
tyā k
ī
a-ma
galā
||10||
tam eva paramātmāna
jāra buddhyāpi sa
gatā
jahur gu
amaya
deha
sadya
prak
ī
abandhanā
||11||
29 Visvanātha’s comments on BhP 10.29.10. In hākura, Sārārtha Darśinī.
Trans. Swami:
dhyānena prāpta
sphūrtyā āgato yocyutas tena tadaivādbhutasya tasya
prema pūr
a cinmayasya tād
śa-svabhāvābhimānādimato dehasya ya
āśle
as tenāśle
e
a yā nirv
tis tayā k
ī
āni k
śībhūtāni ma
galāni
prāk
tāprāk
tāni yāsā
, yāsā
sphūrti-prāpta-pre
ṣṭ
hāśle
ottha-
sukha
vīk
ya ko
ī brahmā
ṇḍ
a gata vi
aya sukha nirvi
aya
brahmānubhava sukha sahasrā
i ma
gala śabda vācyāni k
ī
āni yad
apek
ayā nik
ṛṣṭ
āny eva babhuvur ity artha
| bhagavad viraha
sa
yogottha du
kha sukhābhyā
prārabdha pāpa pu
yāni na
ṣṭ
āni
te
ā
sva phala bhogaika nāśyatād iti vyākhyā tu vai
ṣṇ
avānā
mate na
yujyate ||10||
30 BhP 10.29.35.
31 BhP 10.31.7.
32 BhP 10.31.14, trans. Bryant:
surata-vardhana
śoka-nāśana
svarita-ve
unā su
ṣṭ
hu cumbitam
itara-rāga-vismāra
a
n
ṛṇ
ā
vitara vīra nas tedharām
tam ||14||
33 BhP 10.33.17.
34 BhP 10.32.8.
35 BhP 10.29.16, 10.29.42, 10.32.14, 10.33.3.
36 BhP 10.29.16, 10.29.42.
37 BhP 10.47.58, trans. Bryant:
etā
para
tanu bh
to bhuvi gopa vadhvo
govinda eva nikhilātmani rū
ha bhāvā
vāñchanti yad bhava bhiyo munayo vaya
ca ki
brahma janmabhir ananta kathā rasasya ||58||
38 BhP 10.47.61, trans. Bryant:
āsām aho cara
a re
u ju
ām aha
syā
v
ndāvane kim api gulma latau
adhīnām
yā dustyaja
sva janam ārya patha
ca hitvā
bhejur mukunda padavī
śrutibhir vim
gyām ||61||
39 BhP 3.28.34:
eva
harau bhagavati pratilabdha-bhāvo
bhaktyā dravad-dh
daya utpulaka
pramodāt
autka
ṇṭ
hya-bā
pa-kalayā muhur ardyamānas
tac cāpi citta-ba
iśa
śanakair viyu
kte ||34||
40 Patañjali, Yoga-sūtras, 2.30. The five yamas are: nonviolence (ahimsā),
truth (satya), non-stealing (asteya), subsistence with minimum (aparigraha)
and continence (brahma-carya).
41 Patañjali, Yoga-sūtras 2.31. The five niyamas are: purity (śauca),
satisfaction (sa
to
a), penance (tapas), reading of scriptures (svādhyāya),
and meditation on God (īśvara-pra
idhāna).
42 BhP, 11.19.33. The twelve yamas are nonviolence, truthfulness, not
coveting or stealing the property of others, detachment, humility, freedom
from possessiveness, trust in the principles of religion, celibacy, silence,
steadiness, forgiveness, and fearlessness.
ahi
sā satyam asteyam asa
go hrīr asañcaya
āstikya
brahmacarya
ca mauna
sthairya
k
amābhayam ||33||
BhP 11.19.34, The twelve niyamas are internal cleanliness, external
cleanliness, chanting the holy names of the Lord, austerity, sacrifice, faith,
hospitality, worship of Krsna, visiting holy places, acting and desiring only
for the supreme interest, satisfaction, and service to the spiritual master.
śauca
japas tapo homa
śraddhātithya
mad-arcanam
tīrthā
ana
parārthehā tu
ṣṭ
ir ācārya-sevanam ||34||
43 BhP 3.28.8:
śucau deśe prati
ṣṭ
hāpya vijitāsana āsanam
tasmin svasti samāsīna
ju-kāya
samabhyaset ||8||
44 BhP 3.28.9:
prā
asya śodhayen mārga
pūra-kumbhaka-recakai
pratikūlena vā citta
yathā sthiram acañcalam ||9||
45 BhP 3.28.11:
prā
āyāmair dahed do
ān dhāra
ābhiś ca kilbi
ān
pratyāhāre
a sa
sargān dhyānenānīśvarān gu
ān ||11||
46 BhP 3.28.8–11.
47 Bryant, Krishna, the Beautiful Legend of God, xxxiii.
48 Ibid.
49 BhP 3.28.17:
apīcya-darśana
śaśvat sarva-loka-namask
tam
santa
vayasi kaiśore bh
tyānugraha-kātaram ||17||
50 BhP 3.28.6:
sva-dhi
ṣṇ
yānām eka-deśe manasā prā
a-dhāra
am
vaiku
ṇṭ
ha-līlābhidhyāna
samādhāna
tathātmana
||6||
51 BhP 3.28.2–11.
52 BhP, 3.28.13–33.
53 BhP 3.28.33 trans. Gupta and Valpey:
dhyānāyana
prahasita
bahulādharo
ṣṭ
ha-
bhāsāru
āyita-tanu-dvija-kunda-pa
kti
dhyāyet sva-deha-kuharevasitasya vi
ṣṇ
or
bhaktyārdrayārpita-manā na p
thag did
k
et ||33||
54 Hardy, Viraha-Bhakti, 527.
55 BhP 10.30.19, 10.30.43, 10.31.10, 10.31.17, 10.46.4.
56 BhP 10.29.4.
57 BhP 10.22.23, 10.29.34, 10.30.2.
58 BhP 10.22.5.
59 BhP 10.29.23.
60 BhP 10.30.3, 10.44.15, 10.47.52.
61 BhP 10.35.26:
eva
vraja-striyo rājan k
ṛṣṇ
a-līlānugāyatī
remireha
su tac-cittās tan-manaskā mahodayā
62 BhP 3.28.6:
samādhāna
tathātmana
63 BhP 3.28.34, trans. Gupta and Valpey:
eva
harau bhagavati pratilabdha-bhāvo
bhaktyā dravad-dh
daya utpulaka
pramodāt
autka
ṇṭ
hya-bā
pa-kalayā muhur ardyamānas
tac cāpi citta-ba
iśa
śanakair viyu
kte ||34||
64 Yoga-sūtra, 1.3, 1.4.
65 BhP, 3.29.13:
sālokya-sār
ṣṭ
i-sāmīpya-sārūpyaikatvam apy uta
dīyamāna
na g
h
anti vinā mat-sevana
janā
||13||
66 Schweig, Dance of Divine Love, 156.
67 Bhagavad-gītā 7.25:
daivī hy e
ā gu
a-mayī mama māyā duratyayā
mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etā
taranti te |25|
68 Schweig, Bhagavad Gītā, 248.
69 BhP 10.29.1 trans. based on Schweig:
bhagavān api tā rāt
ī
śāradotphulla-mallikā
vīk
ya-rantu
manaś cakre yoga-māyām upāśrita
||1||
70 BhP 10.29.1.
71 BhP 10.29.16, 10.29.42, 10.32.14, 10.33.3.
72 BhP 10.29.16, 10.29.42.
73 BhP 10.22.1–2, 4, trans. Bryant:
hemante prathame māsi nanda-vraja-kumārikā
cerur havi
ya
bhuñjānā
kātyāyany-arcana-vratam ||1||
āplutyāmbhasi kālindyā jalānte coditeru
e
k
tvā pratik
ti
devīm ānarcur n
pa saikatīm ||2||
kātyāyani mahā-māye mahā yoginy adhīśvari
nanda-gopa-suta
devi pati
me kuru te nama
iti mantra
japantyas tā
pūjā
cakru
kumārikā
||4||
74 H.D. Goswami, Srimad-Bhāgavatam 10.22.27:
yātābalā vraja
siddhā mayemā ra
syathā k
apā
yad uddiśya vratam ida
cerur āryārcana
satī
||27||
75 Schweig, Dance of Divine Love, 196.
76 It may be interesting to consider this verse in light of the Devī
Bhāgavatas assertion that Viṣṇu is bewildered by māyā. This would
follow naturally from the Devī Bhāgavatas claims that Devī, or Śakti, is
the supreme controller, but here, even in the Bhāgavata, “whose very
foundation is built upon the complete and unequivocal mastery of Īśvara,”
there is a hint that Bhagavān becomes overpowered by māyā. Jarow, Tales
for the Dying, 97.
77 BhP 1.8.19:
māyā-javanikācchannam ajñādhok
ajam avyayam
na lak
yase mū
ha-d
śā na
o nā
yadharo yathā ||19||
78 BhP 10.29.12 trans. Bryant.
79 Viśvanātha, Raga-Vartma-Candrika: The Hidden Path of Devotion, trans.
Bhanu Swami, Kindle Edition, 2015.
80 Monier Monier-Williams, A Dictionary of English and Sanskrit (Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1964), 754.
81 BhP 10.29.33, trans. Bryant:
kurvanti hi tvayi rati
kuśalā
sva ātman
nitya-priye pati-sutādibhir ārti-dai
kim
tan na
prasīda parameśvara mā sma chindyā
āśā
dh
tvayi cirād aravinda-netra ||33||
82 BhP 10.31.4,5,7,9 trans. based upon Bryant.
83 BhP 10.25.11–14, trans. Bryant.
84 Viśvanātha, Raga-Vartma-Candrika: The Hidden Path of Devotion, trans.
Bhanu Swami, Kindle Edition, 2015.
85 Viśvanātha, Raga-Vartma-Candrika: The Hidden Path of Devotion, trans.
Bhanu Swami, Kindle Edition, 2015.
86 BhP 1.8.31:
gopy ādade tvayi k
tāgasi dāma tāvad yā te daśāśru-kalilāñjana-
sambhramāk
am
vaktra
ninīya bhaya-bhāvanayā sthitasya sā mā
vimohayati bhīr api
yad bibheti
87 BhP 10.33.3, trans. Schweig:
rāsotsava
samprav
tto gopī ma
ṇḍ
ala ma
ṇḍ
ita
yogeśvare
a k
ṛṣṇ
ena tāsā
madhye dvayor dvayo
pravi
ṣṭ
ena g
hītānā
ka
ṇṭ
he sva nika
a
striya
||3||
88 Viśvanātha’s comments on BhP 10.33.3. In hākura, Sārārtha Darśinī:
yad vā, yogo yogamāyā durgha
anā pa
īyasī mahā śaktis tasyā īśvare
a |
yugapat
sarva gopīnām āśle
autsukya
tasyābhijñāya saiva tāvata
prakāśā
s
tasya praka
ayya samādadhau ||3||
89 BhP 10.33.3. We also find a reference to Kṛṣṇa expanding himself in
numerous forms to dance with the gopīs in BhP 10.33.20.
90 BhP 10.33.37, trans. Schweig:
nāsūyan khalu k
ṛṣṇ
āya mohitās tasya māyayā
manyamānā
sva-pārśva-sthān svān svān dārān vrajaukasa
||37||
91 BhP 10.29.20, trans. Bryant:
mātara
pitara
putrā bhrātara
patayaś ca va
vicinvanti hy apaśyanto mā k
ṛḍ
hva
bandhu-sādhvasam ||20||
92 BhP 10.32.22, trans. Bryant:
na pārayeha
niravadya-sa
yujā
sva-sādhu-k
tya
vibudhāyu
āpi
va
yā mābhajan durjara-geha-ś
ṛṅ
khalā
sa
v
ścya tad va
pratiyātu
sādhunā ||22||
93 Rūpa Gosvāmī, Ujjvala-nīlama
i, chapter 14. In Rūpa Gosvāmī, Ve
u-
Gītā: The Song of the Flute, trans. Sivarama Swami (Los Angeles:
Bhaktivedanta Institute, 1999).
94 Rūpa Gosvāmī, Ujjvala-nīlama
i, 3.17–19. In ibid.
95 BhP 1.7.2–4:
tasmin sva āśrame vyāso badarī-
a
ṇḍ
a-ma
ṇḍ
ite
āsīnopa upasp
śya pra
idadhyau mana
svayam ||3||
bhakti-yogena manasi samyak pra
ihitemale
apaśyat puru
a
pūr
a
māyā
ca tad-apāśrayam ||4||
yayā sammohito jīva ātmāna
tri-gu
ātmakam
paropi manutenartha
tat-k
ta
cābhipadyate ||5||
8
Origins, Bondage, Liberation, and
Grace
Of Cats, Monkeys, and Children in
Wells
The Bhāgavata is primarily concerned with how the jīvas bondage is
perpetuated and how it is brought to an end. While the text more or less
takes bondage for granted, there are several passages that discuss the
important but vexing question of how we became bound in the first place.
In some of these passages, the selfs bondage is described as having a
beginning, and that beginning is described as a type of “fall” from an
original spiritual state. As for freedom from bondage (or liberation), this is
basically described as a return to that original state. Standing against this
portrayal, however, are a handful of Bhāgavata passages which seem to
suggest that the selfs bondage is beginningless (anādi), with no starting
point in time.
This chapter explores the question of whether the Bhāgavata views the
bound jīva as having existed eternally in the cycle of birth and death or as
having previously existed in an unbound state of eternal being, from which
it fell into temporal cyclical existence. In the book, Our Original Position,
H. D. Goswami conducts a thoroughgoing analysis of the Bhāgavata’s
perspective on this topic—an analysis that has significantly informed the
following discussion.
We begin by examining statements in the Bhāgavata asserting that bondage
has a beginning and then examine those asserting that it does not. We next
explore an eleventh book Bhāgavata discussion that attempts to resolve this
apparent contradiction, concluding that when words such as nitya (eternal)
are used in certain contexts, they are used in a figurative rather than a literal
sense to indicate not “beginninglessness,” but rather “an uncountably long
period of time” (i.e., old beyond memory). Having now jumped a bit ahead
of ourselves, let us step back and begin with assertions of a beginning.
The Bhāgavata Asserts that
Bondage Has a Beginning
In Chapter 4 we elaborately discussed the Bhāgavata’s Purañjana allegory.
In this section, we closely examine four verses from that allegory that
specifically describe the selfs original position and willful rejection of God
(4.28.52–54; 64).
Recall that at the end of the tale, a brāhma
a (symbolizing Ksa or God)
comes upon Queen Vaidarbhī (symbolizing the individual self) while she is
lamenting for her deceased husband, and inquires as whether the queen
remembers him: “Don’t you recognize me, your unknown friend, with
whom you used to commune?”1 This verse employs the Sanskrit word
vicacartha (literally, “roam together”), which Viśvanātha glosses as militvā,
“meeting as friends do.”2 Here the Bhāgavata implies that the brāhma
a
and Vaidarbhī (God and the individual self) had been together in a previous
time. The brāhma
a next asks Vaidarbhi if she remembers that in the past
she had a very intimate friend, who she had abandoned (hitva) to become an
enjoyer of earthly delights (bhauma bhoga).3 Here specific reference is
made to the fact that at a prior point of existence, the individual self had
voluntarily given up its friendship (or relationship) with God. The Sanskrit
word hitvā means “to leave or abandon,” but also “to disregard or slight.” In
other words, the verse plainly states that the self previously had been in the
company of God, but then had rejected that company to pursue an
independent life of carnal pleasure (bhauma-bhoga). Note that in this
description there is not the slightest hint that the selfs entrapment in the
cycle of birth and death—its alienation from God—is beginningless. The
idea is that one’s natural (original) position is to serve, love, and live
together with God in one or another of his eternal abodes. However, as
noted earlier, when selves desire an independent life of enjoyment, their
oneness-of-interest with God is lost, and they develop a consciousness of
duality, leading them to abhor their subordinate role as minute parts of the
complete whole. Thus they abandon (or “fall” from) God’s association in
order to obtain a position of power and opulence in the temporary world,
where they invariably become entangled in the cycle of birth and death.
The next verse describes the selfs journey from the eternal to the temporal
realm, unknowingly accompanied by God (within the heart), the dear friend
that the self had abandoned in a time beyond memory. In this depiction, the
self and God are compared to two swans residing in the metaphorical lake
of the mind (or Mānasa Lake). They have been existing together for
thousands of years, wandering from one body to another, while remaining
far, far away from their original home (or okas).4
According to commentators, the imagery of swans suggests that although
the two personages have drifted far from home, they maintain their purity
even while in contact with māyā. Vīrarāghava comments that ha
sa
(swan) refers to those that have annihilated all disturbances and hankerings
and that are by nature deathless and untouched by sensual pleasure.5
Śrīdhara concurs: both the self and God are ha
sas, who are free from all
impurities and whose abode is the subtle body (mind) in the heart
(h
dayam).6
Thus far we have seen how the self fell into bondage from an original
position in the absolute realm, and how it has wandered ever since from one
body to another in the temporal realm, kindly accompanied by an unknown
and forgotten friend (the Lord in the heart). Now we come to the final verse
in the series, which completes the cycle by describing how selves regain
their original position in the absolute realm, thus resuming their reciprocal
loving relationship with God. In this joyous exchange of love, God’s only
interest is to serve his devotees eternally, and their only interest is to
eternally serve him. Through the instructions of one swan (the Lord in the
heart) to the other (the individual self), that self is awakened and returns to
his/her original home (the absolute realm), having regained the memory that
had been lost due to material attraction.7 The Bhāgavata describes the soul’s
return in these exact terms: na
ṣṭ
ām āpa puna
sm
tim, “he has regained his
lost memory.”8
As we have seen in the previous Chapter, the Bhāgavata compares the selfs
liberation to the melting and purification of gold.9 Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha
comments on this metaphor as follows: “[O]ne should accept one’s own
[golden] color, which is the destination of the Supreme Self and one’s
blissful spiritual form. Moreover, that jīva again (punar) becomes
unperishing (avyaya), uncovered (asa
v
ta), free of covering (āvara
a-
rahita).”10
The Purañjana allegory provides us with a depiction of the complete
journey of the soul: originally existing with God, choosing to abandon his
company, wandering from birth to birth in māyā’s temporal realm, and the
reawakening of his memory with the help of his unknown friend (or God).
The story is couched in emotive language, with terms like friendship,
abandoning, wandering, and returning—calling up images of the prodigal
son. This portrayal, it should be noted, directly contradict the Bhāgavata’s
so-called anādi verses, which appear to describe bondage as beginningless.
These verses are examined below.
The Bhāgavata Asserts that
Bondage is Beginningless
The Bhāgavata employs a variety of Sanskrit terms when referring to
eternal time—e.g., śāśvata, śaśvat, nitya, anādi, and ananta, which mean
everlasting, perpetual, eternal, beginningless and endless, respectively.
When identifying something as beginningless, the Bhāgavata employs the
word anādi, which appears alongside ananta (unending) or compounded
with nidhana (end) to signify “without beginning or end.”11 Of the eleven
cases in which anādi is used, seven refer to Kṛṣṇa (Hari),12 three describe
kāla (time),13 and one refers to māyā.14 In another verse, anādi is
compounded with the words madhya and nidhana to signify “without
beginning, middle, or end” (a reference to that which is beyond prak
ti).15
Anādi is also used in descriptions of both the cycle of creation and
destruction16 and Bhagavān’s power of ignorance (avidyā),17 which is a
manifestation of māyā.
In addition to these fifteen references, we find nine verses that specifically
describe the bondage of the jīva as anādi.18 For example, in verse 4.29.70,
anādi is used to describe the subtle body (li
ga-rūpa), which consists of
mind, intellect, and senses and which carries the self from one physical
body to another. A similar verse describes the selfs connection with
sa
sāra as “beginningless” (anādi),19 and yet another describes the hard
knot of karmic residues (vāsanās) as having been present since “time
immemorial” (anādi).20
On the surface, these passages appear to suggest that just as Bhagavān
(God), kāla, and māyā are beginningless, so too is the jīvas bondage in
sa
sāra. However, when considering these passages in light of other
passages in the Bhāgavata, which clearly describe a fall from an original
state, one is confronted with the possibility that anādis meaning may not be
as straightforward as its literal definition would suggest. The Bhāgavata’s
use of the word anādi and its claims regarding the selfs bondage are
complex. Have eternal souls been arbitrarily stuck in beginningless bondage
for no apparent reason or have they fallen from the eternal realm to the
temporal realm of bondage due to their own free will? We now carefully
explore the Bhāgavata’s resolution of this matter.
The Bhāgavata’s Resolution
As previously noted, the Bhāgavata employs a variety of terms to refer to
eternal time—terms that are used in a variety of contexts to describe a thing
as beginningless. It appears that resolving the above described dilemma
would involve knowing when these words are used in a figurative as
opposed to a literal sense. Indeed, appropriately interpreting terms like
anādi and nitya relative to the contexts in which they appear seems to have
been a point of concern within the Bhāgavata itself. As hinted above, the
problem is addressed in an eleventh book conversation between Kṛṣṇa and
Uddhava, where the issue revolves around the import of the words nitya-
mukta and nitya-baddha.
Uddhava asks Kṛṣṇa why the same ātma is said to be eternally liberated
(nitya-mukta) and eternally bound (nitya-baddha).21 His dilemma is
apparent: since “nitya” literally means “without beginning or end,” how can
the self be both eternally liberated and eternally bound? In his gloss,
Śrīdhara Svāmī rephrases the question by asking how the self that achieves
liberation can be called nitya-mukta (eternally liberated), since liberation is
something attained at a particular time.”22
At the start of the next chapter, Kṛṣṇa responds by suggesting that neither
bondage nor liberation are factual, but exist only in imagination—in the
eternal living being’s imagining of a connection with the gu
as and in the
acceptance of the temporal body as the self: “Due to the influence of the
material modes of nature, which are under My control, the living entity is
sometimes designated as conditioned and sometimes as liberated. In fact,
however, the soul is never really bound up or liberated; and since I am the
Supreme Lord of māyā, which is the cause of the modes of nature, I also am
never to be considered liberated or in bondage.”23
In this verse, Kṛṣṇa uses the phrase na vastuta
, meaning “without
substance” or “not in reality” to describe both the state of bondage and the
state of liberation. Here the terms nitya-mukta and nitya-baddha are said to
apply only in the realm of māyā, and not in relation to Kṛṣṇa (or God), who
is beyond māyā. Kṛṣṇa clarifies his point by employing the metaphor of a
dream: “Just as a dream is merely a creation of one’s intelligence but has no
actual substance, similarly, material lamentation, illusion, happiness,
distress and the acceptance of the material body under the influence of
māyā are all creations of My illusory energy. In other words, material
existence has no essential reality.”24 This statement, however, is in need of
further clarification.
Kṛṣṇa’s claim that bondage is unreal is not meant to imply that the
temporal realm is illusory in the sense that its perceivable forms do not
exist; rather, it is unreal or insubstantial only and precisely because those
forms are of a temporal or transient nature; they become manifest at a
certain point, develop, gradually deteriorate, and finally disappear. It has
already been shown in Chapter 2 that the Bhāgavata does not regard the
temporal realm as unreal in the strict ontological sense, but only because of
its impermanence. If something has a beginning and an end, it is unreliable
and fleeting, and thus has no ultimate existence—precisely like a dream at
night, which also has a beginning and an end. The Bhāgavata notes, in this
connection, that something which did not exist in the past and will not exist
in the future is merely a superficial designation.25
The same idea is expressed in a verse found in Bhāgavata book ten, chapter
fourteen:
The conception of material bondage and the conception of liberation are
both manifestations of ignorance. Being outside the scope of true
knowledge, they cease to exist when one correctly understands that the pure
spirit soul is distinct from matter and always fully conscious. At that time,
bondage and liberation no longer have any significance, just as day and
night have no significance from the perspective of the sun.26
Indeed, because Kṛṣṇa declares bondage to be insubstantial (11.11.2), some
commentators have reasonably concluded that the experience of bondage
has a beginning and an end. Vīrarāghava comments on Kṛṣṇa’s words as
follows:
Thus having stated that there is for Him [Kṛṣṇa] no karma-bandha, based
on the three gu
as, now, in the verse beginning with the word śoka, the
Lord states that the jīvas bondage in material existence (sa
sāra-bandha)
is anitya, not eternal, because it is based on material designations.27
Vīrarāghava is both careful and radical in the use of terminology. He is so
convinced about the temporality of bondage that he chooses to use a word
that is the direct negation of nitya-baddha, namely, anitya. This is
tantamount to glossing nitya as anitya.
One may ask, however, why the Bhāgavata would refer to the conditioned
self as nitya-baddha (eternally bound) if bondage is in fact anitya? At the
outset, we may note that it is unlikely that the Bhāgavata would use “nitya
in a strict literal sense in reference to the soul’s bondage. After all, the
Bhāgavata tells numerous stories of devotees and ascetics, such as Dhruva,
Nārada, Bharata, and Ajāmila, who received liberation and ascended to
Vaikuṇṭha at the end of their lives. If bondage were endless, the Purāa
would lose both its soteriological purpose and pedagogical power. Thus,
commentators such as Vīrarāghava and Viśvanātha have reasonably
conjectured that in certain contexts, words referring to time, such as nitya,
are used figuratively to suggest a very long period of time. In other words,
bondage is literally anitya, but only figuratively nitya because of its long
duration.28
Like nitya, the word anādi has also been read in a figurative sense by
commentators when it is applied to the bondage of the jīva. They often
explain anādi as “an extremely long time ago” or “so long ago, its
beginning is unknown.” A good example is chapter 26 of book five, where
Śuka states that worldly desires are caused by beginningless ignorance.
Viśvanātha comments, “[It is said that] the jīva has ignorance without
beginning, because it is impossible to say when or how the jīva developed a
relationship with ignorance.”29 In the Anvitārtha-prakāśikā commentary,
we find a similar statement regarding verse 11.11.4, “For the jīva there is
beginningless bondage due to ignorance. Beginningless [anādi] means a
very long time ago.”30
In the 25 instances of anādi, 15 refer to Bhagavān or his energies and 10
refer either to the bondage of the living beings or the life of Brahmā. In the
15 verses that refer to Bhagavān, the word anādi is either compounded with
the word nidhana (to mean without beginning or end) or is accompanied by
ananta (endless). On the contrary, all 10 instances of anādi that refer either
to the bondage of the living being or the life of Brahmā are not
accompanied by these words. Because neither Brahmā’s life nor the
bondage of the jīva is endless, commentators figure that they must have a
beginning (in the Bhāgavata, Brahmā takes birth from Viṣṇu’s navel at the
beginning of creation) and interpret anādi in a figurative rather than literal
sense, interpreting the word as “a very long time ago.”31
Indeed, there is no instance in the Bhāgavata, at least explicitly stated, of
something that is beginningless but not endless, or endless but not
beginningless. Like most Vedantic texts, the Bhāgavata divides reality into
only two categories—sat (real, eternal) and asat (unreal, temporary).32 We
never come across a third category in discussions of time. This is precisely
why anādi is so often accompanied by ananta, and when it is not,
commentators are keen to explain away anādi. In effect, anādi, ananta, and
nitya are fluid terms that are frequently used interchangeably and
figuratively, especially in relation to the soul’s bondage in māyā, despite
their obvious etymological differences.
In sum, it seems reasonable to assume that the Bhāgavata does not regard
bondage as beginningless for the following three reasons: (1) although there
are a handful of occasions where the Bhāgavata describes bondage with
words such as “nitya” (eternal) and “anādi” (beginningless), it appears that
these words are used in a figurative sense; (2) the Bhāgavata’s Purañjana
narrative indicates that the jīva was originally with God in his abode, and
that bondage ensued as a result of the jīvas misuse of free will (i.e., from a
type of “fall”); and (3) there are passages in which the Bhāgavata clearly
speaks of bondage as “forgetfulness” and liberation as a “return to” or
“remembrance of” an original form or state of being.
When it comes to the notion of a “fall from” and a “return to” some sort of
absolute spiritual status, the role of “grace” has received a great deal of
attention from religionists worldwide. What does the Bhāgavata say about
this important theological topic? The remainder of this chapter is dedicated
to finding out.
Individual Effort and Grace in the
Attainment of Liberation
Different theological traditions, in both the East and the West, have
different perspectives on the balance between individual effort and
unmerited favor when it comes to the attainment of God’s ultimate grace
(freedom from temporal bondage and transference to God’s eternal abode).
In a telling parable, which comes in part from the Ramanuja tradition, these
varying perspectives are compared to the mother cat’s “saving” of her
kitten, the mother monkey’s “saving” of her infant, and the human mothers
“saving” of a child that has fallen into a well.
The belief that individual effort plays absolutely no role in the receipt of
God’s grace is exemplified by the mother cat, who picks her kitten up by
the scruff of the neck and carries it from danger, as it dangles without effort
in her mouth. The belief that God’s grace is wholly and solely a response to
individual effort (prayers, devotional acts, good deeds, etc.) is exemplified
by the mother monkey, whose infant must cling by its own strength to her
back as she carries it from danger. Finally, the view that God’s grace
involves a balance between individual effort and divine intervention is
exemplified by the human mother. To extricate her child from danger, the
mother throws down a rope, and in that sense the entire rescue depends on
her intervening by throwing down and pulling up the rope. On the other
hand, the child plays her part as well, for unless she clings to that rope by
her own individual effort, the mothers pulling cannot save her.
Of course, equating the mothers “well rescue” to God’s grace appears to
indicate that God is somehow limited—that he cannot effect a rescue
without our simultaneous effort. Those that adhere to the “well rescue”
view, however, point out that although God is certainly capable of rescuing
us without our help or participation, there is also the matter of free will and
choice—fundamental aspects of being that we droplets of water share with
the sea that is God. As such, whether we reside in temporal bondage or
absolute freedom is determined not by God’s will but rather by our own.
God’s will is always to benefit and uplift all beings, thus he casts down the
rope into the well; but because we have free will, it is we who must choose
to grab onto that liberating rope, and thus be hoisted up from bondage.
Interestingly, during the high middle ages, a dispute about the balance
between effort and grace arose between two prominent disciples of
Rāmānuja: Vedanta Deshika (CE 1268–1369), who taught in Kanchipuram,
in the northern part of the Tamil territory, and Pillai Lokacharya (CE 1264–
1327), who taught further south at Shrirangam.33 This dispute, which
centered around the matters of God’s grace and equality of vision,
continued long after the departure of these philosophical rivals, eventually
forming two schools of thought on grace: the Southern school, more or less
representing the “cat” position (emphasizing causeless grace), and the
Northern school, more or less representing the “monkey” position
(emphasizing individual effort).
Those that adhere to the southern “cat” school reason that if God extends
his grace only in response to an individual’s devotional deeds, attitudes,
and/or qualifications, this would make such grace conditional and selective,
thus contradicting the notion that God is equal to all. In contrast, those that
adhere to the southern “monkey” school reason that if God extends his
grace without taking into consideration an individual’s devotional deeds,
attitudes, and/or qualification, this would make such grace completely
arbitrary, awarding favor to some but not to others on a whim and without
just cause, thus contradicting the notion that God is equal to all. Both sides,
in other words, see God contradicting his equality of vision in different
ways. Where does the Bhāgavata stand?
As will be seen, the Bhāgavata more or less represents the third, “mother-
child-well,” alternative, which posits that although God is theoretically free
to extend his grace to whomever he likes, such grace is generally extended
in response to an individual’s devotional deeds, attitudes, and qualifications.
In other words, although God is certainly powerful enough to liberate
anyone he likes, he will generally not interfere with an individual’s free
will, since it is freedom of choice that makes love of God possible. Love, by
definition, must be freely chosen. In the remaining sections of this chapter
we will explore the Bhāgavata’s particular understanding of God’s grace.
A Brief Overview of the
Bhāgavata’s Position on Grace
We can begin our exploration with the Bhagavad-gītā, the Bhāgavata’s
precursor, said to have been spoken by Kṛṣṇa himself—the same Kṛṣṇa
that the Bhāgavata claims to be the supreme being. Here is a sample of what
the Gītā tells us about the nature of God’s grace:
As they surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Every follows my
path in all respects [4.9–11]. Those who are not faithful in this devotional
service cannot attain Me, and thus they return to the path of birth and death
in this material world [9.3]. But those who always worship Me with
exclusive devotion, meditating on My transcendental form – to them I carry
what they lack, and I preserve what they have [9.22]. To those who are
constantly devoted to Me and worship Me with love, I give the
understanding by which they can come to Me. I dwelling within their
hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of
ignorance [10.10–11]. Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship
Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail
… [18.65].34
The above passages make it abundantly clear that from Kṛṣṇa’s
perspective, as represented in the Gītā, individual effort is integrally
involved in the attainment of ultimate liberation. Turning now to the
Bhāgavata, one finds throughout its pages numerous discussions regarding
the various practices and procedures by which one can arouse God’s grace
and awaken one’s dormant love for God. At the heart of these practices and
procedures stands bhakti (devotion), described as the principle means to
attract Kṛṣṇa and attain ultimate liberation.
In the Bhāgavata’s seventh book, bhakti is said to consist of activities such
as hearing about God’s name, form, qualities, and activities, glorifying,
worshiping, and remembering God, offering one’s prayers to God, actively
serving God’s interests, and giving one’s entire life to God.35 These various
forms of bhakti are exemplified in descriptions of ideal devotees, who
attained freedom from māyā by performing one or more of these devotional
activities. But is it merely the performance of a particular activity (one’s
own self-endeavor) that leads the bound to freedom, or is there something
else that is involved?
The Bhāgavata answers this question in the affirmative, noting that just as
one who is drowning at sea cannot save herself, one who is bound by māyā
cannot free herself from māyā’s grip—i.e., the drowning person requires an
outside person to throw the rope and hoist her up.36
Here the part played by grace and that played by individual effort becomes
apparent, for God reveals himself only to those that attract his favor.
Sincere bhakti is said to be the means by which to attract God, but God’s
reciprocation is essential for ultimate success; our participation is required
but God’s grace is key. The devotee endeavors to approach God through
acts of devotion, but ultimately depends upon God for the result—for God,
the Bhāgavata tells us, is a wholly independent being, bound only by the
unalloyed love of his pure devotees. He is free to reveal himself or to
remain unseen as he likes.
The Bhāgavata privileges devotion (bhakti) over knowledge (jñāna) and
action (karma) precisely because it is devotion that inspires God’s grace:
“The unlimited Lord invariably extends his mercy to those that entirely take
shelter at his feet, and thus they cross beyond insurmountable illusion
(māyā); not so for those that remain selfishly absorbed in bodily delights,
always thinking in terms of “I” and “mine.”37
In the Bhāgavata’s seventh book, the renowned bhakta Prahlāda speaks of
the unique power of bhakti to attract the favor of the Supreme Lord, noting
that qualifications such as wealth, physical strength, beauty, charisma,
knowledge, determination, intelligence, austerity, mystic perfection, and so
forth are insufficient when it comes to pleasing [attracting or gaining the
favor of] the Supreme Lord.38
Interestingly, there are numerous passages and narratives in which the
Bhāgavata speaks of another means by which God’s favor may be obtained:
gaining the favor of the great saintly devotees who are his dearmost
representatives. One such narrative, found early in the Bhāgavata’s first
book, displays the power and effectiveness of such saintly association.
Briefly discussed below, it is the first-person account of Nārada and how he
obtained the favor of Hari (Kṛṣṇa).39
The Bhāgavata Speaks of Nārada’s
Life
Nārada, one of the Bhāgavata’s most celebrated sages, had previously taken
birth as a lower class śūdra. One year, while still a small boy, Nārada and
his mother hosted a group of saintly sages for the four months of the rainy
season, during which time Nārada took the opportunity to hear their talks
about Kṛṣṇa (God) and humbly serve them in various ways. Although
impartial by nature, these great bhāgavatas appreciated the child’s good
qualities, and thus showed him favor.40 In this way, the boy’s misgivings
were destroyed, his devotion for Kṛṣṇa increased, and the very lifestyle of
the sages became attractive to him.
Shortly after the sages’ departure, Nārada’s mother unexpectedly died, and
although still an inexperienced child, he immediately left home and began
wandering to many lands,41 passing through numerous cities, towns,
mountains, and forests. In one such forest,42 he stopped, sat down, and
began deeply meditating on Hari (Kṛṣṇa). Suddenly, his mind became
overwhelmed with devotion, tears flowed from his eyes, and Hari himself
appeared within Nārada’s heart, thus overwhelming him with symptoms of
ecstatic love.43 Suddenly, Hari disappeared and Nārada was unable to re-
invoke his presence by any means, thus filling the child with intense
feelings of sorrow and longing.
To comfort Nārada, the Lord, while staying invisible, spoke as follows:
“This is the only time you will see me in your present life, for those that are
not yet cleansed of all material desires cannot behold me. Yet, to increase
your love for me, I decided to reveal myself this one time.44 But please do
not lament; due to your devoted service to the sages, my pure devotees,
your mind is now firmly fixed in me. Thus, after leaving this inferior
temporal realm, you will become one of my direct personal attendants.”45
Studying the above synopsis, we find in the person of Nārada the
paradigmatic unqualified recipient of grace: a śūdra engaged in menial
work, with no access to the Vedas or brāhma
ical education. And yet, he
becomes a great bhakta (devotee) by the grace (anugraha) of the visiting
sādhus46 (saints), through whom he eventually obtains the grace of the
Lord. In the Bhāgavata’s eleventh book, Kṛṣṇa advises Uddhava that
associating with and following in the footsteps of mahātmās (great souls) is
the most effective means of overcoming māyā.47 For this destroys
attachment to the world of matter and “captures” Kṛṣṇa within the heart:48
Neither the practice of eightfold yoga, the study of Sākhya, the
performance of Vedic sacrifices, study of scriptures, austerities,
renunciation, charity, vows of fasting, worship of the divine image,
recitation of secret mantras, visiting of sacred places, nor adherence to
regulative principles is as effective [in terms of attracting Kṛṣṇa] as
associating with mahātmās.49
But why was Nārada so fortunate as to receive the grace of sādhus? The
Bhāgavata states that the sages, who were equally disposed toward all,
nonetheless showed favor to Nārada—a serious, obedient, self-controlled
boy, who humbly and silently saw to their needs.50 Here the Bhāgavata
seems to suggest that Nārada received the grace of the sādhus because of
his good qualities and his menial service. Viśvanātha, however, argues in
his commentary that since sages see everyone equally—the good and the
bad, the praiseworthy and the blameworthy, the well-behaved and the sinful
—they do not show favor to one person and reject another. Thus,
Viśvanātha explains, their initial mercy was not exactly due to Nārada’s
good qualities and personal service (surrender): “If one says that although
they had equal vision, they showed mercy because he showed good
qualities, then their equal vision would be contradicted by their seeing good
and bad qualities. One should not explain in this way because then the first
mercy would be prejudiced.”51
Viśvanātha’s analysis, however, leads to the following question: if the sages
were indeed impartial in distributing their mercy, their association and their
knowledge of God, why was little Nārada the only recipient of their initial
grace and not the others that were in their vicinity? Nārada’s own mother,
for example, was also involved in the sages’ service, yet the text never
mentions that she also received their grace to such an extent. The
Bhāgavata’s answer is that while the grace of the impartial sadhus is there
for all persons regardless of their good or bad qualifications, the degree to
which that mercy is accepted depends upon the personal inclination of each
individual. Some may be very eager to associate with and serve the sages,
some may be less eager, etc., and some may not want to associate with them
at all. Others may even prefer to vilify or attack the sages, instead of taking
advantage of their merciful association. Their mercy is there for all, but
how that mercy is received remains a matter of personal choice and
inclination. When it rains, the rain pours down its waters on cement
sidewalks, dusty roads, and fields of rich soil without discrimination. The
water is there for all but only the rich soil (because of its soft nature) takes
full advantage of the rain to produce the grains, fruits, and vegetables that
sustain life.
In keeping with this view, Viśvanātha affirms that although the grace of the
sages is available to all without discrimination, the recipient that is more
favorably inclined and piously directed is more likely to accept that grace.52
“When the hardness of the heart caused by gu
as is destroyed and becomes
soft by devotion to the Lord, mercy will appear in the heart.”53 Other
Bhāgavata commentators, Sanātana Gosvāmin and Jīva Gosvāmi, tend to
agree with Viśvanātha’s reading of the Bhāgavata’s position on grace.54
Perhaps one can find a case in which a completely undeserving and
unfavorable candidate has taken full advantage of the causeless mercy of
saints. However, this would likely be the exception rather than the rule.
Narada’s initial impulse to associate with the sages, and his inclination to
serve and listen as they conversed about God, positioned him such that he
was able to take full advantage of their grace, which, as always, remained
available to all.
Thus, it would be difficult to argue, on the basis of the Bhāgavata’s
theology, that grace is completely causeless; for such a view would
undermine the need to cultivate spiritual knowledge and/or engage in any of
the named practices that are said to engender bhakti within the heart. The
Purāa itself, and its message of service to sādhus, would become
irrelevant, making the study of scripture pointless. The text continuously
urges its readers to perform acts of service to evoke the Lord’s grace. As
Prahlāda55 points out in the seventh book, “Your grace (prasāda), like the
wish-yielding heavenly tree, depends proportionately on the service (sevā)
rendered to you.”56
Caste and Freedom from Māyā
The single most important feature of the Bhāgavata is its emphasis on
bhakti directed toward Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu. Because bhakti is intrinsically
related to divine grace (anugraha) the Bhāgavata repeatedly stresses the
independence of bhakti from all considerations of the body and society.57
The Purāa is particularly concerned to establish that a person’s birth,
social status, gender, and caste (var
a) are not significant determinants of
liberation or bhakti. The Bhāgavata illustrates this claim with narratives of
several exemplary figures who are not gods, brāhma
as, or men, but rather
demons, women, and children. The child-devotee Prahlāda, for example,
was born in a family of demonic daityas. In his prayers to Nsiha, the
half-man half-lion incarnation of Visnu, he expresses what turns out to be a
concise statement of the Bhāgavata’s social theory:
I consider that a man of the dog-eating (ca
ṇḍ
āla) caste, who has
thoroughly dedicated his mind, speech, deed, wealth, and his very life itself
to the Lord, is superior to a brāhma
a endowed with the twelve qualities
but averse to the lotus-like feet of Lord Viṣṇu; for the low-caste devotee
sanctifies his whole race but not so the brāhma
a even though he is highly
respected by the public.58
To be sure, the Bhāgavata does not privilege the lower var
as over
brāhma
as, or reject the var
a system altogether. Numerous passages
praise the brāhma
as as greater than the gods. Reverence for brāhma
as is
an important part of many narratives, and even “Kṛṣṇa himself says in the
tenth book that he repeatedly offers homage to the brāhma
a caste since
they are the best friends of living entities.”59 Nevertheless, the Bhāgavata
upholds the var
a system only to relativize it and subordinate it to the
transformative power of bhakti. In the third book, for instance, we read that
by hearing or repeating God’s name occasionally, even outcastes gain the
status of brāhma
as. They become qualified to study the Veda and perform
Vedic sacrifices.60
The relativization of var
a includes questioning the role of birth as the
determinant of a person’s social position. After describing the qualities of
each var
a, for example, Nārada states that a person’s var
a is determined
by one’s qualities and actions, not birth.61 In his study of the social teaching
of the Bhāgavata, Hopkins has similarly observed:
The Bhāgavata does not, in fact, criticize the caste system as such … It
follows instead the policy that can be seen in some of the sectarian portions
of the Mahābhārata: acceptance of the concept of class divisions having
definite distinguishing characteristics, but rejection of the idea that
membership in these classes or possession of their characteristics is the
inevitable result of one’s birth.62
Indeed, so determined is the Bhāgavata to demonstrate the all-
encompassing power of bhakti, that it goes so far as to suggest that a
śūdras humble status is more conducive to bhakti than the dominant
positions of other var
as. Hopkins notes, “Among the characteristics of a
śūdra are said to be humility, purity, truth, and service to his master without
guile, all of which make him ideally suited for devotion, as well as for his
traditional servile role.”63 It is no coincidence, for example, that Nārada, the
de facto bhakti saint of the Bhāgavata, started his journey in a śūdra family,
and yet appears repeatedly throughout the text as the teacher of devotees
like Prahlāda, Dhruva, and Vyāsa. The narrative of Vtrāsura offers another
fine example: despite being a demon by birth (and looks), Vtrāsura is
lauded as an exemplary devotee of Viṣṇu and superior even to Indra, who
ends up receiving instruction from the demon.64 The Bhāgavata thus
appropriates and transforms the ancient narrative of Vtrāsura (found even
in the
gveda), using it in the service of bhakti.
The Bhāgavata prescribes many acts that engender the grace of God, but
three bhakti practices are specifically pointed out as exceptionally powerful
methods for gaining freedom from māyā: hearing the Bhāgavata (śrava
a),
chanting the Lord’s name (kīrtana), and meditation on his form (vi
ṣṇ
o
smara
a).
These practices are considered exceptionally powerful because God’s
names, activities, and forms are his manifestations. They are for the purpose
of bestowing grace (anugraha) upon the devotee. “May that glorious
Supreme Lord of infinite attributes be gracious unto me—the Lord who
though above material names and forms, manifests forms, names, and
pastimes for the sake of bestowing grace upon those who seek shelter at his
feet.”65 Let us now examine each one of the devotional acts of hearing,
chanting, and meditating.
Hearing the Bhāgavata
The Bhāgavata prescribes many acts that engender the grace of God, but it
considers hearing of its own text to be the most effective and immediate
way to transcend māyā. The Bhāgavata promises numerous benefits by
hearing and studying its text—purification from sins, freedom from fear, the
results of studying the Vedas, fulfillment of all desires, liberation, and
attainment of the supreme abode.66
Indeed, the Bhāgavata affirms that Kṛṣṇa personally destroys the bondage
of a person who listens to discussion of his glories, which bestows
happiness and remains forever fresh.67 Other topics of discussion, however,
receive robust criticism:
Speech, which, though full of figurative expressions, never utters the
praises of Śrī Hari—the praises that possess the virtue of sanctifying the
whole world—is considered to be the delight of voluptuous men, who
wallow in the pleasures of the senses like crows that feed upon the dirty
leavings of food.68
The Bhāgavata believes that hearing its text is the most immediate and
effective way to transcend māyā because it is none other than Kṛṣṇa.
Kṛṣṇa is manifest “in the sound vibration of the Vedas (
ī)”69 and the
Bhāgavata considers the Purāas and histories like the Mahābhārata
(itihāsa) to be the fifth Veda.70 Being one of the Purāas, and the “choicest
essence of all Vedas and histories,”71 the Bhāgavata is Kṛṣṇa in sound
form. Not only is the Bhāgavata the essence of the Veda, but it supersedes
the Veda. The Bhāgavata states that after compiling all the Vedas, Purāas
and itihāsas, Vyāsa compiled this Bhāgavata because without it he felt his
work to be incomplete. This Purāa, therefore, is “the ripened fruit of the
wish-fulfilling tree of the Vedas.”72 After the departure of Kṛṣṇa, the
Bhāgavata has taken his place. “This Bhāgavata Purāa is as brilliant as the
sun, and it has arisen just after the departure of Kṛṣṇa to his own abode,
accompanied by religion, knowledge, and so forth. Persons who have lost
their vision due to the dense darkness of ignorance in the age of Kali shall
get light from this Purāa.”73
The Bhāgavata’s conviction in its ability to give freedom from māyā is
demonstrated in the frame story of the entire work—King Parīkit listens to
the Bhāgavata from Śuka-deva continuously for seven days and receives
liberation at the end.74 Sūta also heard the Bhāgavata from Śuka-deva and
later repeated it to the sages of Naimiāraya, in order to ameliorate the
effects of the upcoming dark age, Kali-yuga.75 Indeed, Nārada makes a
fascinating claim in this regard: by learning about the Lord’s māyā, one
achieves freedom from māyā. “The soul of the person who describes the
māyā of the Almighty or who gives his approbation to this or who always
devoutly listens to this, is not bewildered by māyā.”76 The tenth book sums
it up well: “By thinking about, reciting, and hearing the beautiful stories of
Mukunda, which constantly become more in number, a person [attains to]
his incomparable abode, and overcomes death. Even rulers of the earth left
their communities to go into the forest for this purpose.”77
In closing, it should be noted that all that has been said of the practice of
hearing (or reading) the Bhāgavata can be equally said of chanting (or
repeating) the names of Kṛṣṇa (or God). With regard to such chanting
(kīrtana), the Bhāgavata states that whatever benefits had been received in
earlier ages by meditation, sacrifice, or the worship of sacred images can be
obtained in the age of Kali simply by singing the names of Hari (hari-
kīrtana):78 “The age of Kali is an ocean of faults, but there is one great
quality—simply by repeating Kṛṣṇa’s names, one can become liberated
from attachment and attain the highest destination.”79
Māyā in the Bhāgavata Purāņa: Human Suffering and Divine Play. Gopal
K. Gupta, Oxford University Press (2020).
© Gopal K. Gupta. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198856993.001.0001
1 BhP 4.28.52.
2 Visvanatha’s commentary on BhP 4.28.52,
ki
jānāsīti nanu tvam
eva vipro mama ka ity ata āha, sakhāyam iti. katha
tvayā saha mama
sakhyam ity ata āha, yena mayā saha agre s
ṛṣṭ
e
pūrva
vicacartha. mayy
eva militvā mat-sa
gena sukham anubhūtavān tvam evāsīr ity artha
||52||
3 BhP 4.28.53:
api smarasi cātmānam avijñāta-sakha
sakhe
hitvā mā
padam anvicchan bhauma-bhoga-rato gata
||53||
4 BhP 4.28.54:
ha
sāv aha
ca tva
cārya sakhāyau mānasāyanau
abhūtām antarā vauka
sahasra-parivatsarān ||54||
5 Vīrarāghava’s comments on BhP 4.28.54, trans. Tagare, hinasti nirasyati
vikārān iti ha
sa
6 Śrīdhara Svāmin’s comments on BhP 4.28.54, sūk
ma-śarīra-gata
h
dayam.
7 BhP 4.28.64:
eva
sa mānaso ha
so ha
sena pratibodhita
sva-sthas tad-vyabhicāre
a na
ṣṭ
ām āpa puna
sm
tim ||64||
8 BhP 4.28.64.
9 BhP 11.14.25:
yathāgninā hema mala
jahāti dhmāta
puna
sva
bhajate ca rūpam
ātmā ca karmānuśaya
vidhūya mad-bhakti-yogena bhajaty atho mām
||25||
10 Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha, of the Madhva Sampradāya, comments on BhP
11.14.25, trans. H. D. Goswami in Our Original Position, p. 89:
nija-var
a
paramātma-gatim, ānanda-svarūpa
ca bhajeta.
kiñca sa jīva
punar avyayosa
v
ta
āvara
a-rahito bhavati. ||25||
11 anādi is combined with the word nidhana in four verses (BhP 1.8.28,
BhP 11.3.8, BhP 12.6.2,
BhP 12.11.50) and with the word anta in seven verses (BhP 2.6.40, BhP
3.29.45, BhP 4.11.19, BhP 7.3.30, BhP 11.16.1, BhP 12.4.19, BhP 12.4.37).
12 BhP 12.6.2, BhP 12.11.50, BhP 2.6.40, BhP 7.3.30, BhP 11.16.1, BhP
12.4.37, BhP 1.8.28.
13 BhP 11.3.8, BhP 3.29.45, BhP 4.11.19.
14 BhP 12.4.19: anādy anantam avyakta
nitya
kāra
am avyayam.
15 BhP 2.10.34:
ata
para
sūk
matamam avyakta
nirviśe
a
am
anādi-madhya-nidhana
nitya
-manasa
param ||34||
16 BhP 12.10.4:
etat kecid avidvā
so māyā-sa
s
tim ātmana
anādy-āvartita
ā
kādācitka
pracak
ate ||4||
17 BhP 12.11.29:
anādy-avidyayā vi
ṣṇ
or ātmana
sarva-dehinām
nirmito loka-tantroya
loke
u parivartate ||29||
18 BhP 4.29.70, BhP 5.14.1, BhP 5.25.8, BhP 5.26.3, BhP 6.5.11, BhP
8.24.46, BhP 10.77.32, BhP
11.11.4, BhP 11.22.10.
19 BhP 5.14.1: anādi-sa
sārānubhavasya.
20 BhP 5.25.8:
anādi-kāla-karma-vāsanā-grathitam avidyāmāya
h
daya-granthim |8|
21 BhP 11.10.37:
etad acyuta me brūhi praāna
praśna-vidā
vara
nitya-baddho nitya-mukta eka eveti me bhrama
||37||
22 Śrīdhara Svāmin’s commentary on BhP 11.10.37, trans. H. D. Goswami
in Our Original Position, p. 54: mukter janyatvenityatva-prasa
gān nitya-
mukta ity apy a
gī-kārya
syāt. tatra me bhramo bhavatīty āha. ||37||
23 BhP 11.11.1, trans. H.D. Goswami:
baddho mukta iti vyākhyā gu
ato me na vastuta
gu
asya māyā-mūlatvān na me mok
o na bandhanam ||1||
24 BhP 11.11.2, trans. H.D. Goswami:
śoka-mohau sukha
du
kha
dehāpattiś ca māyayā
svapno yathātmana
khyāti
sa
s
tir na tu vāstavī ||2||
25 BhP 11.28.21:
na yat purastād uta yan na paścān madhye ca tan na vyapadeśa mātram
bhūta
prasiddha
ca pare
a yad yat tad eva tat syād iti me manī
ā ||21||
26 BhP 10.14.26 trans. H.D. Goswami.
27 Vīrarāghava Gosvāmin’s commentary on BhP 11.11.2, trans. H. D.
Goswami in Our Original Position, p. 57: eva
svasya gu
a-traya-karma-
bandhābhāvam uktvā jīvasyāpi sa
sāra-bandha aupādhikatvād anitya ity
āha śoketi. ||2||
28 Vīrarāghava Gosvāmin’s commentary on BhP 11.11.2: eva
svasya
gu
a-traya-karma-bandhābhāvam uktvā jīvasyāpi sa
sāra-bandha
aupādhikatvād anitya ity āha śoketi. ||2||
29 Viśvanātha’s commentary on BhP 5.26.3 trans. based on H.D. Goswami:
anādy-avidyā-sambandho jīvasya kadā katha
veti vaktum aśakte
. ||3||
30 Anvitārtha-prakāśikā on BhP 11.11.4 trans. based on H.D. Goswami:
asya jīvasyaivāvidyayānādir bahu-kāliko bandhosti.
31 Anvitārtha-prakāśikā on BhP 11.11.4.
32 See, for example, BhP 1.2.30, 1.3.33, 1.5.27, 2.5.6, 2.6.33, 2.6.42, 2.7.50,
2.9.33, 3.1.14, 3.5.25, 3.15.6, 3.22.4, 3.26.9, 3.26.10, 3.27.3.
33 Srilata Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvai
ṣṇ
avism: Tamil
Cats and Sanskrit Monkeys, Routledge Hindu Studies Series (New York:
Routledge, 2006), 4.
34 Bhagavad-gītā, trans. Bhaktivedanta Swami.
35 BhP 7.5.23:
śrava
a
kīrtana
vi
ṣṇ
o
smara
a
pāda-sevanam
arcana
vandana
dāsya
sakhyam ātma-nivedanam ||23||
36 BhP 8.17.28.
37 BhP 2.7.41, trans. Gupta and Valpey:
nānta
vidāmy aham amī munayogra jās te māyā-balasya puru
asya
kutovarā ye
gāyan gu
ān daśa śatānana ādi deva
śe
odhunāpi samavasyati nāsya
pāram
38 BhP 7.9.9.
39 BhP 1.5–6.
40 BhP 1.5.24.
41 BhP 1.5.24.
42 BhP 1.6.10:
tadā tad aham īśasya bhaktānā
śam abhīpsata
anugraha
manyamāna
prāti
ṣṭ
ha
diśam uttarām ||10||
43 BhP 1.6.18.
44 BhP 1.6.22–3l:
hantāsmiñ janmani bhavān mā mā
dra
ṣṭ
um ihārhati
avipakva-ka
āyā
ā
durdarśoha
kuyoginām ||22||
sak
d yad darśita
rūpam etat kāmāya tenagha
mat-kāma
śanakai
sādhu sarvān muñcati h
c-chayān ||23||
45 BhP 1.6.24:
sat-sevayādīrghayāpi jātā mayi d
ṛḍ
hā mati
hitvāvadyam ima
loka
gantā maj-janatām asi ||24||
46 BhP 1.5.26:
tatrānvaha
k
ṛṣṇ
a-kathā
pragāyatām
anugrahe
āś
ṛṇ
ava
manoharā
||26||
47 BhP 11.12.
48 BhP 11.12.2:
vratāni yajñaś chandā
si tīrthāni niyamā yamā
yathāvarundhe sat-sa
ga
sarva-sa
gāpaho hi mām ||2||
49 BhP 11.12.1 trans. based on Tagare:
na rodhayati mā
yogo na sā
khya
dharma eva ca
na svādhyāyas tapas tyāgo ne
ṣṭ
ā-pūrta
na dak
i
ā ||1||
50 BhP 1.5.24:
te mayy apetākhila-cāpalerbhake dāntedh
ta-krī
anakenuvartini
cakru
k
yadyapi tulya-darśanā
śuśrū
amā
e munayolpa-bhā
i
i
||24||
51 Viśvanātha’s commentary on BhP 1.5.24. In hākura, First Canto
Commentaries Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, trans. Bhanu Swami.
dānte niyatendriye adh
ta-krī
anake bālyocita
krī
anam apy akurvati |
yadyapi te tulya-darśanā
suśīle
u du
kha-śīle
u ca sat-kurvatsu
tiraskurvatsu ca sad-ācāre
u durācāre
u ca jagaj-jane
u yadyapi sama-
d
ṛṣṭ
aya
ko vā te
ām anugrāhya
ko vā nigrāhyas tad api mayi k
cakru
| sarvatra sāmyepi mahatsu bharata-prahlādādi
u k
pāyā
vai
amya-darśanād iti bhāva
| atra mat-sauśīlyānuv
ttyādikam
anapek
yaiva prathama
k
cakru
| tataś ca tat-k
pā-janya-
sauśīlyānuv
tty-ādika
punar api te
ā
k
pātiśayasyaiva kāra
am abhūd
iti te
ā
nirupādhikara
atvam apy avaśyam eva vyākhyeyam | te yadyapi
tulya-darśanās tad api acāpalyādi-gu
a-viśi
ṣṭ
e mayi k
cakrur iti
vyākhyāne gu
a-do
a-darśana-prasaktyā te
ā
tulya-darśanatva
vyāhanyeta | prathama-k
pāyāś ca nirupādhitva
na syād iti na tathā
vyākhyeyam |
52 Viśvanātha’s comments on BhP 11.20.9.
53 Viśvanātha’s commentary on BhP 1.5.24. In hākura, trans. Bhanu
Swami, First Canto Commentaries Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (Vrindavan, India):
iti śukokta-nyāyena kadācit kam api jana
vi
ayīkaroti sāhyanta
-
kara
asya gu
a-k
tāyā
ka
horatāyā bhagavad-bhaktyaiva dhva
se sati
tayaiva dravībhāvam ādite tatraivānta
-kara
e āvirbhavet ||
54 See Sanātana Gosvāmin and Jiva Gosvāmin’s commentary on BhP
10.20.36, trans. Bhanu Swami.
55 Child-saints are a feature of bhakti narratives found throughout the
Purāas. Regarding the story of Prahlāda, Soifer, has noted, “To intensify
the struggle of the devotee against the violent ignorance of Hirayakaśipu
and to bring to the fore the gentleness of Viṣṇu, which is personified in his
soulmate, the devotee Prahlada is … [portrayed as] but a young lad of
approximately five years.” Deborah A. Soifer, The Myths of Narasi
ha
and Vāmana: Two Avatars in Cosmological Perspective, Suny Series in
Hindu Studies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 95.
56 BhP 7.9.27 trans. based on Tagare:
nai
ā parāvara-matir bhavato nanu syāj
jantor yathātma-suh
do jagatas tathāpi
sa
sevayā surataror iva te prasāda
sevānurūpam udayo na parāvaratvam ||27||
57 BhP 2.7.42:
ye
ā
sa e
a bhagavān dayayed ananta
sarvātmanāśrita pado yadi nirvyalīkam
te dustarām atitaranti ca deva māyā
nai
ā
mamāham iti dhī
śva ś
gāla bhak
ye ||42||
58 BhP 7.9.10 trans. based on Bhaktivedanta Swami:
viprād dvi
a
gu
a yutād aravinda nābha
pādāravinda vimukhāt śvapaca
vari
ṣṭ
ham
manye tad arpita mano vacanehitārtha
prā
a
punāti sa kula
na tu bhūrimāna
||10||
59 BhP 10.52.33, trans. Bryant:
viprān sva lābha santu
ṣṭ
ān sādhūn bhūta suh
ttamān
niraha
kāri
a
śāntān namasye śirasāsak
t ||33||
60 BhP 3.33.6–7:
yan-nāmadheya-śrava
ānukīrtanād yat-prahva
ād yat-smara
ād api
kvacit
śvādopi sadya
savanāya kalpate kuta
punas te bhagavan nu darśanāt
||6||
aho bata śva-pacoto garīyān yaj-jihvāgre vartate nāma tubhyam
tepus tapas te juhuvu
sasnur āryā brahmānūcur nāma g
ṛṇ
anti ye te ||7||
61 BhP 7.11.35:
yasya yal lak
a
a
prokta
pu
so var
ābhivyañjakam
yad anyatrāpi d
śyeta tat tenaiva vinirdiśet ||35||
62 Hopkins, “The Social Teaching of the Bhāgavata Purā
a,” 16.
63 “The Social Teaching of the Bhāgavata Purā
a,” 17.
64 See BhP 6.9–12.
65 BhP 6.4.33 trans. based on Tagare:
yonugrahārtha
bhajatā
pāda-mūlam
anāma-rūpo bhagavān ananta
nāmāni rūpā
i ca janma-karmabhir
bheje sa mahya
parama
prasīdatu ||33||
66 BhP 12.12.62–3.
67 BhP 12.12.47.
68 BhP 1.5.10 trans. based on Tagare:
na yad vacaś citra-pada
harer yaśo jagat-pavitra
prag
ṛṇ
īta karhicit
tad vāyasa
tīrtham uśanti mānasā na yatra ha
sā niramanty uśik-
k
ayā
||9||
69 BhP 11.12.18:
a
u
prajāto havi
ā samedhate
tathaiva me vyaktir iya
hi vā
ī ||18||
70 BhP 1.4.20:
g-yaju
-sāmātharvākhyā vedāś catvāra uddh
itihāsa-purā
a
ca pañcamo veda ucyate ||20||
71 BhP 1.3.42:
tad ida
grāhayām āsa sutam ātmavatā
varam
sarva-vedetihāsānā
sāra
sāra
samuddh
tam ||42||
72 BhP 1.1.3:
nigama-kalpa-taror galita
phala
73 BhP 1.3.45, trans. Bhaktivedanta Swami:
k
ṛṣṇ
e sva-dhāmopagate dharma-jñānādibhi
saha
kalau na
ṣṭ
a-d
śām e
a purā
ārkodhunodita
||45||
74 BhP 12.6.9–10.
75 BhP 12.12.56.
76 BhP 2.7.53 trans. based on Tagare:
māyā
var
ayatomu
ya īśvarasyānumodata
ś
ṛṇ
vata
śraddhayā nitya
māyayātmā na muhyati ||53||
77 BhP 10.90.50 trans. Bryant:
martyas tayānusavam edhitayā mukunda
śrīmat kathā śrava
a kīrtana cintayaiti
tad dhāma dustara k
tānta javāpavarga
grāmād vana
k
iti bhujopi yayur yad arthā
||50||
78 BhP 12.3.52:
k
te yad dhyāyato vi
ṣṇ
u
tretāyā
yajato makhai
dvāpare paricaryāyā
kalau tad dhari-kīrtanāt ||52||
79 BhP 12.3.51 trans based on Tagare:
kaler do
a-nidhe rājann asti hy eko mahān gu
a
kīrtanād eva k
ṛṣṇ
asya mukta-sa
ga
para
vrajet ||51||
Appendix I
Uses of the Word Māyā in the
Bhāgavata Purāa
māyā as
divine
condition
Māyā is
the power
used to
facilitate
God’s play,
līlā, and
reveal his
form and
qualities to
worthy
souls.
1.11.34, 1.13.47, 2.5.21, 2.6.30, 2.8.23, 2.10.45,
3.2.12, 3.3.8, 3.6.39, 3.13.25, 3.18.20, 3.20.8,
3.21.19, 3.24.16, 3.25.1, 3.25.3, 3.26.18, 3.28.32,
4.1.27, 4.7.26, 4.7.37, 4.8.57, 4.9.7, 4.16.2, 4.30.23,
5.4.4, 5.6.7, 5.11.13, 5.18.23, 6.8.13, 6.9.26, 6.9.40,
6.18.8, 7.1.28, 7.2.7, 7.8.46, 7.10.71, 8.3.8, 8.8.37,
8.9.8, 8.18.11, 8.18.24, 8.19.32, 8.24.1, 10.1.7,
10.3.20, 10.3.46, 10.8.43, 10.12.38, 10.13.15,
10.14.21, 10.14.55, 10.15.19, 10.18.2, 10.45.1,
10.45.10, 10.69.19, 10.69.37, 10.69.38, 10.79.33,
10.83.4, 10.83.7, 10.84.16, 10.84.22, 10.84.23,
10.85.20, 10.85.54, 10.86.45, 10.86.48, 10.88.27,
11.5.49, 11.12.23, 11.31.11
māyā as
creation
and
creative
power
Māyā is
the power
that causes
and
constitutes
the world.
1.17.23, 2.4.6, 2.5.18, 2.7.39, 2.8.10, 2.9.27, 2.9.34,
2.10.13, 2.10.35, 3.2.30, 3.5.22, 3.5.25, 3.5.26,
3.5.32, 3.5.34, 3.5.35, 3.6.35, 3.9.1, 3.10.12,
3.13.43, 3.13.45, 3.15.5, 3.21.21, 3.31.13, 4.1.56,
4.3.11, 4.7.39, 4.11.16, 4.12.6, 4.12.15, 4.17.29,
4.17.32, 4.17.36, 4.24.61, 5.4.3, 5.11.6, 5.11.12,
5.13.1, 5.14.1, 5.16.4, 5.18.31, 5.18.37, 5.20.41,
6.3.33, 6.5.16, 6.9.25, 6.9.36, 6.9.42, 6.15.4, 6.16.9,
6.16.54, 6.17.21, 6.19.11, 7.1.6, 7.1.10, 7.2.22,
7.6.23, 7.9.21, 7.9.30, 7.9.36, 8.3.4, 8.5.43, 8.5.44,
8.6.11, 8.12.39, 8.14.10, 8.23.8, 9.8.24, 9.8.25,
9.8.26, 9.9.47, 9.21.15, 10.14.19, 10.27.4, 10.28.6,
10.37.12, 10.38.11, 10.47.30, 10.47.31, 10.49.29,
10.63.38, 10.70.38, 10.73.11, 10.85.13, 10.89.19,
11.3.16, 11.6.8, 11.7.7, 11.7.47, 11.9.16, 11.9.19,
11.11.1, 11.11.3, 11.13.34, 11.18.27, 11.21.43,
11.22.30, 11.24.3, 11.26.2, 11.28.3, 11.28.7,
11.28.27, 11.30.49, 12.4.34, 12.5.6, 12.7.19,
12.10.1, 12.10.41, 12.11.5, 12.11.11
māyā as
human
condition
Māyā is
the power
that crafts
the human
condition
by
distracting
and
deluding
living
beings in
various
ways.
1.13.55, 2.2.2, 2.5.12, 2.5.19, 2.6.36, 2.7.42, 2.7.47,
2.9.1, 2.9.2, 2.9.3, 2.9.10, 3.2.10, 3.5.38, 3.7.4,
3.7.16, 3.9.9, 3.15.24, 3.21.14, 3.21.20, 3.23.57,
3.30.5, 3.31.15, 3.31.20, 4.6.48, 4.6.49, 4.7.2,
4.7.30, 4.7.31, 4.7.44, 4.9.9, 4.9.33, 4.20.4, 4.20.29,
4.20.31, 4.20.32, 4.23.18, 4.30.33, 5.3.14, 5.6.10,
5.11.15, 5.17.19, 5.17.20, 5.17.24, 5.18.4, 5.19.15,
6.3.15, 6.3.25, 6.4.28, 6.4.53, 6.11.27, 6.12.20,
7.2.47, 7.5.11, 7.9.31, 7.9.43, 7.15.39, 8.2.26,
8.5.30, 8.7.39, 8.12.10, 8.12.35, 8.12.43, 8.16.18,
8.22.28, 9.4.58, 9.6.52, 9.8.23, 9.19.27, 9.21.17,
10.1.42, 10.1.43, 10.2.28, 10.3.39, 10.8.42,
10.12.11, 10.12.39, 10.13.25, 10.14.22, 10.14.44,
10.16.58, 10.23.41, 10.23.50, 10.37.22, 10.37.23,
10.40.23, 10.48.27, 10.51.46, 10.54.43, 10.63.40,
10.70.28, 10.73.10, 10.84.25, 10.85.16, 10.87.14,
10.87.32, 11.2.8, 11.2.37, 11.3.17, 11.3.33, 11.5.18,
11.6.46, 11.7.16, 11.7.17, 11.7.61, 11.7.66, 11.10.13,
11.11.2, 11.13.33, 11.19.1, 11.22.4, 11.29.3,
11.29.39, 11.30.13, 11.30.24, 11.30.38, 12.6.29,
12.6.30, 12.8.48, 12.9.6, 12.10.2
māyā as
power
Māyā’s use
is
unspecified
or simply
refers to
“power.”
2.7.41, 2.7.43, 2.7.46, 2.9.41, 2.10.30, 3.1.16, 3.7.9,
3.15.26, 3.16.9, 3.16.15, 3.16.37, 3.23.10, 3.25.37,
4.7.51, 4.9.28, 4.11.26, 4.17.31, 5.2.7, 5.6.15,
5.18.17, 5.18.38, 5.26.38, 6.3.17, 6.5.1, 6.7.16,
6.8.32, 6.12.31, 6.18.61, 7.13.43, 7.13.44, 8.12.40,
8.12.42, 8.20.28, 9.20.27, 9.24.58, 10.3.48, 10.3.48,
10.14.9, 10.14.17, 10.14.43, 10.19.14, 10.29.1,
10.39.55, 10.63.26, 10.69.42, 10.70.37, 10.78.34,
10.85.34, 10.85.44, 10.85.48, 10.85.57, 11.6.11,
11.22.28, 11.24.27, 12.8.45, 12.10.10, 12.10.27,
12.10.40, 12.11.24
māyā as
magic
Māyā is
magic,
illusion,
wonder,
and
mystery.
1.15.8, 3.13.48, 3.18.4, 3.18.24, 3.18.25, 3.19.22,
3.19.24, 3.22.34, 3.23.9, 3.27.30, 4.10.21, 4.10.28,
4.10.29, 4.11.2, 4.18.20, 5.24.8, 5.24.9, 5.24.16,
5.24.28, 6.15.23, 7.5.43, 7.10.53, 8.10.45, 8.10.52,
8.10.55, 8.11.4, 8.11.5, 8.11.6, 8.12.21, 8.19.8,
8.21.10, 10.6.4, 10.8.40, 10.12.42, 10.13.41,
10.13.42, 10.13.44, 10.13.45, 10.13.57, 10.14.14,
10.33.37, 10.37.28, 10.55.14, 10.55.16, 10.55.21,
10.55.22, 10.75.37, 10.76.17, 10.76.21, 10.77.10,
10.77.27, 10.77.28, 10.77.36, 10.78.34, 11.2.48,
11.3.1, 11.23.26, 12.9.19, 12.10.30
māyā as
falsehood,
cheating,
trickery
Māyā is
used in the
general
sense of
falsehood,
cheating,
and
trickery.
1.17.32, 2.1.31, 3.1.38, 4.8.2, 4.8.60, 4.17.27,
4.19.38, 4.22.38, 5.24.22, 7.8.23, 7.11.24, 7.13.5,
7.15.43, 9.18.49, 10.14.16, 10.14.18, 10.29.24,
10.49.25, 10.54.25, 10.56.11, 11.3.22, 11.5.34,
11.11.39, 11.17.19, 11.19.7, 11.27.9, 11.27.15,
12.2.3, 12.3.30, 12.3.34, 12.4.25
māyā as
goddess
Māyā is
personified
as a
goddess.
2.3.3, 2.7.47, 2.7.53, 2.7.53, 3.14.29, 6.19.6,
10.1.25, 10.2.6, 10.2.12, 10.2.15, 10.3.47, 10.4.13,
10.4.29, 10.22.4, 10.53.51, 10.55.6
māyā as
woman
Māyā is
identified
with
women.
3.30.8, 3.31.37, 5.14.28, 6.2.37, 6.18.39, 8.12.30,
8.12.38, 9.19.12, 9.20.9, 11.8.7, 11.8.8
Appendix II
Uses of the Word Māyā as a
Compound in the Bhāgavata
Purā
a
Compound Meaning References
māyā-
mātram simply māyā
1.3.30, 1.8.19, 2.7.47, 6.16.54,
7.13.5, 11.19.1, 11.21.43,
11.26.2, 12.4.25
māyā-mohita enchanted by māyā 1.7.24, 10.13.42, 10.14.44,
10.23.51,
māyā-gu
aqualities of nature
1.13.56, 3.33.24 25, 3.5.25,
3.5.35, 3.13.45 4.1.26 27,
4.20.29, 5.16.4, 5.18.34,
6.3.33, 9.6.52,9.8.23, 9.8.24,
11.24.3
māyā-maya consisting of māyā
2.2.2, 3.13.25, 4.7.31, 4.23.18,
5.18.17, 5.24.22, 6.9.36,
7.9.36, 10.27.4, 10.76.21,
11.7.7, 11.12.22-23, 11.24.27,
12.4.34, 12.7.19, 12.8.45
ātma-
māyā/sva-
māyā/man-
māyā
his/my own māyā
2.6.36, 5.26.38, 6.16.9, 7.1.6,
9.8.25, 11.5.18, 11.14.9,
11.30.49, 12.10.30
māyā-bala strength of māyā 2.7.41, 3.9.9, 8.16.18,
Māyeśa lord of māyā 2.8.10, 8.11.4
māyā-kirāta/-
gām/
-va
u/-
manuja/
-n
si
ha/-
yo
itā/
-
avakam/-
matsya/-
arbhaka
illusory
hunter/cow/dwarf/human/half
man half
lion/woman/son/fish/boy
3.1.38, 3.18.20, 4.17.27,
6.8.13, 7.8.46, 8.9.8, 8.18.24
25, 8.24.59, 10.1.4, 10.13.15
Compound Meaning References
yoga-māyā māyā produced from yoga
3.2.12, 5.6.7, 8.5.43, 3.5.22,
3.2.12, 3.15.26, 3.16.9,
3.19.17, 3.23.10, 6.12.31,
10.19.14, 10.69.37, 10.69.42,
10.83.4
deva-māyā god’s māyā 3.30.5, 3.31.20, 4.7.2, 5.6.10,
7.15.38 39, 10.8.40,
devi-māyā goddess’s māyā 1.3.34
māyā-
viracita/-
ce
ṣṭ
ita
arranged or created by māyā 3.31.48, 9.19.26, 9.24.58,
māyādhipati master of māyā 6.3.17
māyā-racita created by māyā 5.11.6, 5.11.12, 8.5.44,
10.1.42,10.1.43, 11.28.27
vi
ṣṇ
u-māyā Viṣṇu’s māyā 6.5.1, 10.1.25, 12.9.19
divya-māyā divine māyā 6.9.34
māyā-śakti māyā power 6.19.11
māyā-yoga connected with māyā 7.2.47
māyā-sukha illusory happiness 7.9.43
īśa-māyā māyā of the Lord 9.9.47
svapna-māyā māyā like dream 9.18.49
māyāśrita resorted to māyā 10.12.11
māyāśayā bed of māyā 10.13.41
māyā-
damana subduer of māyā 10.14.16
māyāvin possessor of māyā, magician
3.18.24, 4.9.28, 5.24.9,
5.24.16, 5.24.28, 10.77.10,
10.77.27
mahā-māyā great māyā 12.6.29
k
ṛṣṇ
a-māyā Kṛṣṇa’s māyā 11.30.13, 11.30.24
Appendix III
Some Occurrences of Yoga-māyā in
the Bhāgavata Purāa
Verse Text Meaning in Context
2.7.43 paramasya hi
yoga-māyā
illusory power of Bhagavān (described as
dustarā
deva-māyām “divine power difficult to
surmount in the previous verse)
3.6.35 yoga-māyā-
balodayam Viṣṇu’s creative power
3.13.45
(also
5.6.7)
yad-yoga-
māyā-gu
a-
yoga-mohita
bewildering power
3.16.15 te yoga-
māyayārabdha
power by which Viṣṇu reveals his form to the
Kumāras
3.16.37
yogeśvarair api
duratyaya-
yoga-māya
the Lord’s power, inscrutable even to the masters
of yoga
3.18.4 yoga-māyā-
balam
mystic power used by Varāha in battle to kill his
enemies
3.21.19 adhi-yoga-
māyayā
the power that Bhagavān uses to create the
universes, just as a spider uses its power to
weave a web
3.22.34 ni
ṣṇ
āta
yoga-māyāsu mystic powers of Svāyambhuva Manu
6.12.31 yoga-māyā-
balena ca mystic power of Indra
8.5.43 yad-yoga-
māyā-vihitān
energy that arranges the material elements (earth,
air, fire, etc.), time, karma, and the three gu
as
into their particular forms
Verse Text Meaning in Context
10.69.37
(also
10.83.4)
yoga-
māyodaya
vīk
ya
Kṛṣṇa’s power (seen by Nārada) to assume
many forms
Appendix IV
All the Instances of Māyā in the
Bhāgavata Purāa
This appendix provides a table of all the references of māyā in the
Bhāgavata. The first column of the table lists the verse number, the second
provides the verse, the third gives a partial translation of the verse, and
finally the fourth identifies how the term māyā is used in that verse. For an
explanation of the various uses of māyā in the Bhāgavata, please refer to
Chapter 1.
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image
Table_Image